y^^Pvujii 


J 


m 


'^ 


/ 


"6^ 


^ 


Q. 


-T3 

to 

_c 

Q- 

M— 

o 

$ 

<D 

C 

< 

^^ 

<u 

E 

(T5 
CO 

S 

5^--;. 


^ 


BX  6339  .C5  H6  1846 
Howell,  Robert  Boyte 
Crawford,  1801-1868. 
The  terms  of  communion  at 


THE 


TERMS  or  COMMUNION 


THE  LORD'S  TABLE. 


ROBERT  BOTTE  cIlOWELl,  D.  D. 


PASTOR  OF  THE  SECOND  BAPTISJ  CHCUCH,  RICHIIOXD,  VA. 


'*  Now  I  praise  you,  brethren,  that  yo  remember  ma  ifi  all  things,  and 
keep  the  ordinances  as  I  delivered  them  unto  you." — Paul. 


KiKt^  ^?;Ci2?:aHlj, 


PIITLADELPHIA  : 

AMERICAN  BAPTIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY. 

118   ARCH   STREET. 


/<?¥ 


7 


Entered  according  lo  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1846,  by 

W.  W.   KEEN, 

Treasurer  of  the  American  Baptist  Publication  Society :  in  the  Clerk'i 

Office  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


PHt-LADKI.rHlA  t 

KINO    AND    BAIRD,    PRINTERS, 

No.  y  George  Street. 


"tC.JUAl  1881 


■YT^r^-^r^' 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION. 

This  little  work  has  attained  a  popularity  unanticipated 
by  the  author.  Its  wide  circulation  in  this  country,  and  its 
republication  in  England,  he  regards  as  the  best  testimonials 
of  its  usefulness.  He  has  attempted  some  improvements 
in  this  edition,  which  he  flatters  himself  will  be  acceptable 
to  his  readers.  What  they  are,  will  be  seen  by  those  who 
may  look  over  its  pages.  He  again  sends  it  forth,  with  his 
sincere  prayer  to  God  for  his  blessing  upon  this  effort  to 
defend  and  sustain  the  truth. 


Nashville,  Tennessee, 
February  3,  1846. 


I 

*,^.       ^     -U*.    Jiu»   W    -Jt  'ij?    VA  A    W  .5^    -»-*     /u 


TO   THE 


BAPTIST    CONVENTION 


STATE    OF    TENNESSEE, 

By  whose  solicitation  the  work  was  undertaken,  this  little 
volume  is  most  respectfully  inscribed.  If  the  efTorts  of  the 
writer  to  illustrate  the  law  of  God,  and  the  duty  of  Christians, 
in  regard  to  Sacramental  Communion,  shall  be  so  fortunate 
as  to  merit  the  regard,  and  receive  the  approbation,  of  a  body 
so  learned  in  the  Scriptures,  and  so  well  qualified  to  determine 
"  what  is  truth,"  the  recollection  of  his  success  wiU  ever 
pro\^e  a  rich  reward  to 

Their  fellow  labourer  in  the  Gospel, 

And  devoted  brother  in  Christ, 

THE  AUTHOR. 


CONTENTS 


Sacramental  Communion  has  not  been  sufficiently  considered — Wlio 
has  written,  and  what — Why  I  wTite — We  deplore  the  controversy-— 
What  part  of  the  subject  I  have  discussed — The  internal  controversy 
—Why  the  Church  has  always  been  unpopular — Misrepresentations — 
The  argumentum  ad  hominum — Communion  now  the  strong  point  of 
attack  upon  us — Spirit  in  which  I  shall  conduct  the  discussion — We 
ask  only  to  be  candidly  heard  in  our  own  defence. 

CHAPTER  I. 


Are  we  at  liberty  to  adopt  any  terms  of  communion 

NOT  established  BY  JESUS  CHRIST?  -  -  21 

Definition  of  Communion — General  object — Several  opinions  on  this 
question — Our  own  position  defined — Nature  of  positive  laws — Scrip- 
ture proofs  of  our  doctrines — Conclusions — Their  general  application 
•—Their  particular  application — Powers  of  a  Church — Church  repre- 
sentatires — Pvights  of  individuals — Error  of  New  Test  men — Conse- 
quences of  violating  the  principles  advocated — Conclusion. 

CHAPTER  H. 

The    scriptural   terms   of   com3Iunion  at  the  lord's 
table  stated  and  proved,  -  -  35 

Repentance,  faith,  and  baptism  are  terms  of  communion — English 
authors — Hudson  River  Association  Circular — ^^The  apostolic  commis- 
sion is  the  law  of  communion — The  order  of  the  sacraments — Their 
order  in  the  primitive  Churches — Emblematical  representations — In- 
spired injunctions  regarding  the  perpet'iitv  of  primilivejorder — By  whom 
the  Siicrumejits  are  to  be  administered — How  received — ConciusioUi 


•W  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  history  of  opinion  regarding  the  terms  of  com- 
munion SHOWS  THAT  OUR  DOCTRINE  HAS  BEEN  UNIVER- 
SALLY   embraced    on    THE    SUBJECT,  -  -  51 

Baptism  has  been  held  in  all  ages,  and  by  all  denominations,  to  be  « 
a  divinely  prescribed  preliminary  to  the  Lord's  supper — Dr.  Priestley's 
opinions — Testimonies  in  proof,  Justin  Martyr,  Jerome,  Austin,  Bede, 
Theophylact,  Bonaventure,  Frid.  Spanheim,  Lord  Chancellor  King, 
Austin's  rule — Modern  divines — Wall,  Doddridge,  Manton,  Dwight, 
all  the  Catechisms  and  Confessions  of  Faith — Robert  Hall. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Reply  to  such    objections  to  our  doctrines  on  this 

SUBJECT    AS    are    DERIVED  FROM  THE    PRESUMED    NATURE 

OF  John's  baptism,  -  -  -  58 

Opinions  of  Mr.  Hall,  that  John's  was  not  Christian  baptism,  and 
therefore  that  the  original  communicants  had  never  been  baptized— 
His  own  reasons  refute  his  conclusions — Contrast  of  John's  with 
Christ's  baptism — Their  respective  formularies  —  Christ's  desire  to 
conceal  his  own  character — If,  on  account  of  the  objects  designed 
to  be  represented,  John's  was  not  Christian  baptism,  for  the  same 
reasons  the  first  administration  of  the  Lord's  supper  was  not  Chris- 
tian— The  same  correspondence  in  spiritual  import — Difference  in  the 
ordinances  before  and  after  the  death  of  Christ — Arguments  as  to 
time — Mistake  in  regard  to  the  source  of  John's  commission — Com- 
parison between  the  baptism  of  John,  and  of  the  disciples  of  Christ. 

CHAPTER  V. 

Reply  to  the  arguments  against  our  doctrine  on 
sacramental   communion   founded  on  the   inspired 

principles    of    CHRISTIAN    TOLERATION,  -  77 

« 
The  proposition  examined,  that  a  change  of  circumstances  justifies 
a  change  of  practice  with  regard  to  the  ordinances — Inspired  canons 
of  Christian  toleration  recited — They  require  forbearance  with  things 
iudilTereut,  but  do  not  permit  us  to  extend  our  fellov.'ship  to  errors 
which  are  subversive  of  the  divine  law. 


CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Reply  to  such  objections  to  our  doctrine  on  sacra- 
mental COMMUNION  as  ARE  FOUNDED  ON  THE  SPIRITU- 
ALITY OF  THE  GOSPEL,  AND  DRAWN  FROM  OTHER  AND 
MISCELLANEOUS    SOURCES,  -  -  -  91 

The  spiritual  nature  of  the  Gospel  not  inconsistent  with  its  outward 
forms — The  promptings  of  Christian  feeling — The  duty  of  recogniz- 
ing as  such,  all  that  we  believe  to  be  truly  converted — Pedobaptista 
sincerely  believe  themselves  right — We  associate  with  them  in  other 
departments  of  worship — As  every  man  is  responsible  for  himself  to 
God,  we  are  bound  to  respect  their  faith,  and  in  receiving  them  do 
not  violate  our  own. 

CHAPTER  Vn. 

We  ARE  NOT  AT  LIBERTY  TO  ADMINISTER  THE  LORD's  SUP- 
PER FOR  ANY  PURPOSES  OTHER  THAN  THOSE  DESIGNATED 
BY  OUR  LORD  JESUS  CHRIST,  -  -  -  103 

The  design  of  the  Lord's  Supper  not  a  test  of  Christian  love — Recip- 
rocal confidence,  or  religious  fellowship — Pedobaptists  and  Quakers 
—Communion  administered  to  secure  popularity — Witliheld  as  a 
punishment — Verbal  nonsense — Open  communion  not  an  act  of  faith, 
obedience,  or  worship 

CHAPTER  Vni. 

We  CANNOT  UNITE  WITH  PEDOBAPTISTS  IN  SACRAMENTAL 
COMMUNION  -SVITHOUT  AN  ACTUAL  ABANDONMENT,  OR 
PRACTICAL  FALSIFICATION  OF  ALL  OUR  PRINCIPLES  ON 
BOTH  BAPTISM  AND  THE  lord's  SUPPER,       -  -  118 

Forced  confessions — Anabaptism — Change  of  public  feeling  in  regard 
to  us— Former  persecutions — Parliament  of  Charles  I. — Assembly  of 
divines  at  Westminster — Henry  VIII. — Episcopal  Convocation — Con- 


10  CONTENTS. 

sequences — Queen  Elizabeth  and  the  Aldgate  Church — Burning  of 
Baptist  women — American  persecutions — Danger  of  popularity — In- 
fluence of  open  communion. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

We  cannot  engage  in  communion  with  our  pedobaptist 
brethren,  because  they  are  not  baptized,  having 
received  the  rite  in  their  infancy,  -  131 

There  is  no  law  for  infant  baptism — The  commission  does  not  au- 
thorize it — The  teachings  of  the  Apostles — Their  practice — The  object 
for  which  baptism  is  received — The  actions  of  those  baptized  by  the 
Apostles — Infant  baptism  is  an  evil — It  is  prohibited  in  the  word  of 
God. 

CHAPTER  X. 
We  cannot  commune  with  pedobaptists  because,  not 

HAVING  been  immersed,  THEY  ARE  NOT  BAPTIZED,     153 

Immersion  only  is  baptism,  proved  by  the  sense  of  the  word — its 
philology — Its  sense  confessed  by  critics — By  theologians — Ancient 
Confessions  of  Faith— The  English  Liturgy — Use  of  the  word  in  our 
common  translation — Ancient  version  of  the  New  Testament — rea- 
sons why  it  received  its  present  rendering — Translations  into  Hebrew 
—Conclusions. 

CHAPTER  XL 

We  cannot  commune  with  pedobaptists,  because,  NOT 
HAVING  been  immersed,  THEY  ARE  NOT  BAPTIZED,      166 

Objections  to  our  conclusions  founded  on  the  New  Testament  refuted 
—Facts  considered — Passages  of  Scripture — Metaphorical  allusions  to 
baptism — The  design  of  baptism  requires  immersion — The  places  where 
baptism  was  administered — Concurrence  in  our  views  by  scholars 
—Reasons  of  their  agreement  with  us  in  sentiment,  and  different 
practice — Conclusion. 


CONTENTS.  11 

CHAPTER  XII. 

Baptists  cannot  commune  with  pedobaptists,  because 
they  administer  baptism  for  illegal  purposes,  and 
attach  to  it  an  unreasonable  and  unscriptural 
degree  of  efficacy  and  importance,  -         180 

Pedobaptist  doctrines  of  baptism — Baptismal  regeneration  held  by  the 
fathers — This  originated  infant  baptism,  pouring  and  sprinkling — The 
Catechism  and  Canons  of  the  Council  of  Trent — All  Pedobaptist 
Churches  believe  in  baptismal  regeneration — Book  of  Common  Prayer 
— Confession  of  Faith — Discipline — Disciples  of  Christ — Conservative 
influence  of  Baptist  principles. 

CHAPTER  XIH. 

Baptists  cannot  unite  with  pedobaptists  in  sacramen- 
tal COMMUNION,  because  THEY  ATTACH  TO  THE  LORD's 
SUPPER  AN  UNREASONABLE  AND  UNSCRIPTURAL  IMPOR- 
TANCE AND  EFFICACY,  -  _  _  203 

Early  superstition — Roman  Catholics — Infant  communion — Came  mlo 
the  church  with  infant  baptism  and  accompanied  it  for  a  thousand 
years — Its  abrogation — When  and  why — Opinions  of  the  Episcopal 
church — Of  the  Presbyterian — Of  the  Methodist — Communion  with 
them  is  an  assent  to  their  doctrines  on  communion  which  we  can- 
not give — Open  communion  is  impracticable — It  is  subversive  of  all 
discipline— The  law  of  God  the  only  safe  rule — Close  of  this  part  of 
the  argument. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

^  The  POLICY  of  free  communion  considered,  and  shown 

TO  BE  DISASTROUS  TO  THE  CHURCH,  -  -  215 

Close  communion  is  odious — the  Church  would  be  more  prosperous 
were  it  abandoned — Argument  from  reason — from  facts — Principles 
of    free    communion    B'.[)tiv:.= — Rc-'ult?   of  the    practice— Bimyan'g 


12  CONTENTS. 

church — Foster's — Hall's — Giles'  instances — Open  communion  aban- 
doned by  its  advocates — Close  communion  most  consistent  with  pros- 
perity and  harmony. 

CHAPTER  XV. 

Baptists,  after  all,  are  more  free  and  liberal  in 
their  communion  than  any  class  of  pedobaptists 
whatever,  -  -  -  -  228 

Baptists  are  not  the  only  close  communionists — Between  Pedobaptista 
of  different  sects  there  is  no  more  love  or  union  than  between  them 
and  ourselves — All  Pedobaptists  exclude  from  the  Lord's  Table  two 
thirds  of  their  own  members — Episcopacy — Episcopal  and  Protestant 
Methodists — New  and  Old  School  Presbyterians — Present  contro- 
versy on  that  subject  in  the  Pedobaptist  churches.  Acts  of  Synods, 
&c. — The  tone  of  the  religious  press — Inconsistency. 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

Can  THE  BAPTIST  CHURCH,  IN  MAINTAINING  CLOSE  COMMU- 
NION, BE  JUSTLY  CHARGED  WITH  THE  SIN  OF  SCHISM  ?  245 

That  schism  exists  somewhere  is  evident — We  have  not  produced  it, 
and  are  therefore  not  responsible — We  have  adhered  to  original  prin- 
ciples' — Baptists  are  identical  with  primitive  Christians — When  the 
disciples  became  Pedobaptists  they  severed  themselves  from  us — We 
have  maintained  ever  since  a  separate  existence  on  original  ground 
not  connected  with  Papists  or  Protestants — Historical  proofs — Con- 
fessions of  Faith — Our  name — Duty  of  Pedobaptists,  having  produced 
the  schism,  is  obvious — they  are  required  to  heal  it — It  is  not  difficult 
to  determine  how  it  may  be  done — Its  consequences. 

CHAPTER  XVH. 
Recapitulation  and  conclusion,        -  -  265 

Contents  of  the  several  chapters — Summary  of  the  whole — Exhor- 
tation— Union — Liberality — Prosperity — Firm  adherence  to  original 
principles — Our  ultimate  triumph. 


INTRODUCTION 


The  terms  of  intercourse  at  the  Lord's  table,  have  not  been 
adequately  discussed.     Numerous  fugitive  productions  have, 
at  diflerent  times,  appeared,  mostly  in  the  form  of  pamplilete, 
tracts,  ch-cidars  of  associations,  and  articles  in  die  religious 
journals  of  the  day.     A  few  reprints  of  transadantic  works 
have  been  made.     Booth  and  Fuller  have  been  issued  by  our 
own  denomination  ;  and  by  our  Pedobaptist  brethren,  Bunyan 
and  Hall.     But  none  of  these,  well  written  and  useful,  as 
many  of  them  are  admitted  to  be,  are  considered  exactiy  of 
tlie  character  demanded.     They  are  eitiier  too  superficial  and 
brief,  or  too  elaborate  and  profound.     They  deal  in  generals, 
on  the  one  hand,  discuss  arguments,  and  controvert  doctrmes, 
that  do  not  obtain  among  us  ;  or,  on  the  otiier,  tiiey  array  the 
investigation  m  a  deep  and  metaphysical  process  of  literaiy 
and  logical  acumen,  which  render  it  of  httie  worth,  except  to 
the  few  who  are  thoroughly  educated.     jMy  object  has  been 
to  pursue  the  medium  between  these  extremes.     I  have  writ- 
ten, not  for  scholars  and  divmes,  but  for  the  mass  of  the 
people.     I  have  sought,  therefore,  to  avoid  equally  tiie  ambi- 
guity attendant  upon  studied  sententiousness,  die  confusion  of 
toituous  and  protracted  reasoning,  and  the  tedium  of  a  weary 
prohxity. 

To  the  several  works  of  Robert  Hall,  in  favor  of  Mixed 
Communion,  is  devoted,  as  will  be  seen,  rather  special  atten- 
tion. If  any  apology  is  necessary  for  replying,  as  much  at 
large  as  our  hmits  would  permit,  to  the  unposing  theories  of 
which  he  was  the  advocate,  it  may  be  found,  not  oidy  in  his 

2  13 


14 


INTRODUCTION. 


great  abilities  as  a  writer,  joined  to  the  fascination  of  Iiis 
glowing  and  brilliant  style, — characteristics  which  must  ever 
invest  tliem  with  no  small  degree  of  popularity, — but  in  the 
additional  consideration  that,  in  all  parts  of  our  country,  they 
liave  been  procured  in  great  numbers,  and  circulated  with  the 
utmost  industry,  as  the  strongest  weapons  that  can  be  em- 
ployed against  us.  It  was  thought  necessary  that  the  charm 
of  his  authority  should  be  dispelled;  the  sophistry  of  his 
prmcipal  argiunents  exposed ;  and  that  our  brethren  who  can- 
not find  time,  or  facilities,  for  extensive  reading,  should  have 
at  command,  in  a  small  compass,  the  information  requisite  t6 
meet  and  refute  those  who  may  employ  his  reasoning.  How 
far  this  object  is  accomplished,  the  event  only  can  detemiine. 
The  sacred  table  should  be  surrounded  only  by  purity  and 
brotlierly  love.  The  many  melting  recollections  with  whiclv 
it  is  associated,  render  a  single  discordant  note  there,  painfully 
repulsive.  It  is  connected  with  every  consideration  calculated 
to  elicit  the  hohest  feelings  of  the  renewed  soul,  the  most 
entire  consecration  to  God,  and  the  most  unfeigned  love  to  his 
people.  We  therefore  expect  to  see  every  communicant 
fully  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  Christ,  and  conscious  of  no 
other  feelings  than  those  which  prompted  the  gi-eat  sacrifice, 
of  which  this  is  the  established  memorial.  V/e  recoil  from 
the  thought  that  censure,  or  reproach,  should  ever  reach  so 
pure  a  circle,  or  that  the  principles  of  their  intercourse  should 
become  matter  of  invective  and  controversy.  But  upon  earth, 
alas  !  we  are  not  peniiitted  to  reahze  perfection.  Yet  coiTupt, 
and  his  passions  still  unsubdued,  man's  nature  characterizes 
every  act  in  which  he  is  engaged.  Feelings  of  worldliness 
find  their  way  into  the  midst  of  his  holiest  devotions.  As  a 
consequence,  the  Lord's  supper  has,  of  late,  become  the  arena 
upon  which  the  fierce  spirit  of  conflict  battles  for  the  mastery 
in   sectarian  sti'ife.     While  our  Pedobaplist  brethren  have 


INTRODUCTION.  15 

planted  their  artilleiy  on  these  holy  ramparts,  as  upon  tlie 
very  citadel  of  Zion,  that  they  may  pour  into  our  ranks  a 
more  destructive  fire;  a  disposition  appears  to  be  growing 
among  our  own  people,  to  employ  it  as  a  means  of  dispensing 
rewards,  and  inflicting  punishments.  These  agitations  ouglit, 
by  every  means  in  our  power,  to  be  resisted.  While  per- 
mitted to  prevail,  they  must  be  productive  of  incalculable 
injury  to  the  advancement  of  ti-uth  and  righteousness,  as  well 
as  to  the  cultivation  of  brotherly  love,  and  Christian  union. 

Disappointment  may,  by  some,  possibly,  be  felt,  when  it 
is  found  that  I  have  not  even  alluded  to  several  of  the  most 
prominent  topics  which  belong  to  the  subject  of  Sacramental 
Communion.  To  divest  tlie  rite  of  those  mists  m  which  it 
has  so  long  been  enshrouded,  by  the  Popish  expositions 
which  represent  it  as  an  expiatory  sacrifice,  and  teach  tlie 
transubstantiation,  or,  the  no  less  irrational,  though  protestant 
notion,  the  consubstantiation,  of  its  elements,  on  the  one  hand  ; 
and,  on  the  other,  to  refute  the  modern  doctrine  which  assumes 
it  as  an  "  effectual  means  and  seal  of  grace,"  would  be  a  work 
of  undoubted  importance.  Unless  "  the  signs  of  the  times" 
are  deceptive,  a  full  discussion,  in  our  country,  of  all  these 
dogmas  will  very  soon  be  demanded.  The  task  would  be 
equally  profitable  and  delightful  to  illustrate  the  metaphorical 
character  of  the  eucharist,  the  various  vital  doctrines,  and 
amazing  facts,  it  exhibits  to  our  view,  connected  immediately 
with  our  redemption,  sanctification,  and  salvation ;  the  nature 
of  the  spiritual  measures  by  ^vhich  its  reception  should  be 
preceded  and  accompanied ;  the  advantages  arising  from  its 
regular  observance ;  and  numerous  other  considerations  hav- 
inor  direct  and  collateral  bearings  upon  the  subject.  But  were 
all  these  topics  introduced,  they  would  require  more  of  bodi 
tune  and  space  than  I  have  at  present  at  command.  Nor  is 
it  particularly  necessary,  smce  several  works,  embracing  these 


16  INTRODUCTION. 

topics,  are  accessible  to  our  people,  in  some  of  which  they 
are  discussed  with  candor,  and  in  a  few,  the  general  style  and 
argument  partake  but  little  of  the  party  prejudices  which  so 
frequently  disfigin-e  the  productions  of  all  the  sects  in  relation 
to  Christian  fellowship  and  communion. 

The  internal  controversy  in  relation  to  strict  and  free  com- 
munion, the  American  churches  have,  thus  far,  almost  entirely, 
escaped.  I  cannot  but  congratulate  them  on  an  event  so 
fortunate.  Agitations  of  this  character  are  always  productive 
of  consequences  the  most  lamentable.  On  the  other  side  of 
the  Atlantic  they  have  prevailed  for  more  than  a  century,  and 
are  now  shaking  the  English  church  to  its  very  foundation. 
Individuals  have  been  found  in  our  country,  who  express 
doubt  as  to  the  propiiety  of  strict  communion.  A  few  isolated 
instances  exist  of  communities  who  practise  upon  the  opposite 
principles.  But  no  association,  nor  even  a  single  church, 
respectable  for  either  numbers  or  intelligence,  has,  within  the 
compass  of  my  information,  seceded  from  the  great  body  of 
th^  denomination  upon  this  ground.  Our  whole  miglity 
army,  bearing  the  bamier  of  undeviating  obedience  to  the  word 
of  God,  the  whole  word  of  God,  and  nothing  but  the  word 
of  God,  upon  the  ample  folds  of  whibh  is  inscribed — "  one 
FiORD,  ONE  FAITH,  ONE  BAPTISM,"  prcseuts  an  unbroken  front. 
The  internal  controversy,  therefore,  need  be  considered,  only 
in  so  far  as  may  be  necessary  to  guard  our  churches  against 
its  evils,  and  to  maintain  ourseh^es  in  opposition  to  the  argu- 
ments drawn  from  that  source  by  Pedobaptists. 

The  docti'ine  and  worship  of  the  tme  church  of  Christ, 
have  never  been  popular  with  the  world.  Sometimes,  and 
in  some  countries,  one  portion,  and  in  other  ages  and  nations, 
another,  has  been,  during  the  whole  Christian  period,  made 
the  occasion  of  bitter  reproach,  and  pleaded  in  justification  of 
every  persecution.     It  is  still   emphatically  true,  that   "as 


INTRODUCTION. 


17 


concerning  this  sect,  we  know  that  everywhere  it  is  spoken 
against."  Our  ecclesiastical  polity  has  sometimes  rendered  us 
peculiarly  obnoxious.  Uniformly,  in  all  countries,  modeled 
upon  the  plan  of  the  New  Testament,  it  has  ever  necessarily 
been  strictly  republican.  Such  a  government  has  an  inva- 
riable tendency  to  exalt  the  intellectual  powers,  and  to  inspire 
an  urepressible  love  for  pohtical  freedom.  The  inalienable 
right  of  all  Christians  to  full  hberty  of  conscience,  free  from 
any  control  whatever  from  the  civil  magistrate,  and  their 
accountability  in  matters  of  faith  to  God  only,  is  another  doc- 
trme  we  have  cherished,  witli  enthusiasm,  from  the  days  of 
tlie  apostles,  until  now.  And,  under  all  governments,  we  have 
constantly  protested  against  the  unholy  alliance  of  church  and 
state — the  blending  of  the  spiritual  Math  tlie  civil  power. 
These  and  other  similar  characteristics,  so  offensive  to  a  venal 
priesthood,  so  odious  to  the  minions  of  pohtical  authority,  and 
which  the  populace  have  been  taught  to  loathe  and  abhor, 
could  impress  none  but  philosophers,  and  tndy  enlightened 
Christians.  The  multitudes  have  ever  been  ready  to  take 
the  yoke,  and  move  as  they  were  directed  by  their  leaders. 
In  our  own  country,  smce  the  adoption  of  the  present  form 
of  national  government,  these  tenets,  which,  if  history  spealis 
U-uly,  had  no  small  influence  in  fixing  its  character,  have  been 
sufficiently  popular.  All  parties  now,  tacitly  or  avowedly, 
accord  their  approbation.  Until  that  tune,  however,  as  at  the 
present  moment,  in  eveiy  government  in  continental  Europe, 
and  in  all  the  American  states  south  of  the  Rio  del  Norte, 
they  had  called  down  upon  the  head  of  the  church,  the  ven- 
geance of  every  petty  ruler,  and  ambitious  despot.  Pohtical 
favorites  have  ever  delighted  to  khidle  the  fires  by  which  we 
were  consumed,  and  left  no  efforts  unattempted  to  exterminate 
us  from  the  face  of  the  earth. 

AU  the  principles  of  the  chuich  of  Christ,  however,  have 


18  INTRODUCTION. 

not  yet  been  adopted.  Even  Protestant  denominations,  and 
in  our  own  free  land,  ima^ning  that  they  still  have  reason  to 
resist  ns,  do  so,  in  a  manner  evincive  that  they  have  not  lost 
entirely  the  spirit  of  their  ancestors.  Their  swords  and  chains 
are  broken,  their  prisons  are  demohshed,  and  their  fires  extin- 
<,mished ;  still  they  have  the  means  of  annoyance.  It  is  con- 
lidently  alleged  that  our  distinguishing  doctiines  had  their 
origin  with  "  the  madmen  of  Munster,"  that  they  yet  remain 
the  same  with  theirs,  and  are,  therefore,  essentially  revolu- 
lionar}^,  and  fanatical ;  our  baptism  is  pronounced,  in  high 
(quarters,  indecent,  revolting,  and  dangerous ;  and  our  com- 
munion is  derided  as,  in  principle,  the  very  essence  of  bigotiy, 
and,  m  practice,  selfish,  intolerant,  and  proscriptive. 

To  all  this,  were  we  so  disposed,  we  might  very  success- 
fully reply  with  the  argumentum  ad  hominum.  Were  there 
Baptists  among  the  men  of  JMunster,  and  is  our  church  there- 
fore responsible  for  all  the  excesses  of  the  mass  in  that  scene  ? 
Then  the  Huguenots  of  France,  are  responsible  for  all  the  ex- 
travagancies and  impostiires  of  the  Camisards,  and  the  French 
Prophets ;  the  Presbyterians  are  responsible  for  all  the  ravings 
of  Irvingism ;  the  Episcopalians  for  the  fanaticism  and  fooleries 
of  the  followers  of  Joanna  Southcote ;  the  Methodists  for  those 
of  Anna  Lee ;  and  the  Pedobaptists  generally  for  the  Fifth 
Monarchy  Men  of  London,  who  rose  for  King  Jesus,  and 
tlirew  that  metropolis  into  consternation.  But  no  sensi])Ie 
man  will  brand  a  whole  denomination  with  shame,  for  the 
follies,  or  the  crimes,  of  a  few  individuals  who  may  chance 
to  be  ecclesiastically  connected  with  it.  We  glory  in  our 
whole  spiritual  ancestry,  among  whom  we  number  the  Apos- 
tles of  Christ,  and  the  saints  and  martyrs  of  all  ages. 

The  baptismal  controversy  is  believed  to  be  drawing  near 
its  close.  A  centiny  of  conflict  is  about  terminating  tlie  vic- 
tory in  favor  of  apostolic  forms.     The  noise  of  the  tumult  in 


INTRODUCTION.  19 

that  region  is  eviclentlj'-  subsiding.  As  the  light  of  science 
has  grown  more  and  more  bright,  and  candor  has  mingled 
with  the  piety  of  christians,  truth  has  gradually  gained  ground. 
'J'hat  infants  should  not  be  subjected  to  a  rite  which  can  do 
them  no  good  whatever,  and  which,  so  far  as  they  are  con- 
cerned, is  without  authority  in  the  word  of  God,  is  an  im- 
pression which  is  rapidly  advancing ;  and  immersion,  in  the 
name  of  the  Holy  Trmity,  is  so  e\idently  the  only  scriptural 
baptism,  that  on  these  points  our  opponents  feel  themselves 
driven  to  the  wall.  The  growing  popularity  of  the  primitive 
mode  and  subjects  of  baptism,  is  sufficiendy  illusti'ated  by  the 
fact  that,  after  the  most  poignant  and  ingenious  ridicule  that 
can  be  heaped  upon  them,  all  denominations  are,  even  now, 
forced  frequently  to  employ  them,  or  lose  many  of  their  most 
estimable  members. 

One  point  of  attack — Sacramental  Communion — remains. 
Here  the  popular  breeze  appears,  for  the  moment,  to  favor 
our  assailants,  and  the  onset  is  universal  in  all  quarters.  The 
more  grave  of  our  neighbors  read  us  solemn  lectures  on  chris- 
tian liberality,  humility,  brotherly  affection,  and  the  import- 
ance of  spirituality  above  mere  form  in  religion.  The 
pedantic  and  flippant  catch  the  theme  of  detraction,  and  shower 
around  us  the  shafts  of  their  ridicule.  The  -vTilgar  crowd 
follow,  with  coarse  epithets,  and  boisterous  denunciations! 
All  these  it  becomes  necessary  for  us  to  meet,  in  the  best 
spirit  and  manner  we  can  command.  In  attempting  to  do 
this,  1  would  not  be  considered  as  laying  claim  to  any  know- 
ledge on  the  subject  not  possessed  by  thousands  of  my 
brethren,  but  simply  as  manifesting  a  disposition,  which  I 
certainly  deeply  feel,  to  contribute  my  feeble  aid  to  the  triumph 
of  "  the  truth,  as  it  is  in  Jesus." 

It  is  my  purpose  to  conduct  this  controversy  in  the  true 
spirit  of  our  holy  religion ;  it  is  true,  we  differ  with  christians 


20  INTRODUCTION. 

of  Other  denominations,  yet,  for  them  all,  we  can,  with  tlie 
utmost  sincerity,  aver,  that  we  cherish  the  most  hearty  good 
will.  We  assail  no  one,  we  challenge  no  one,  and  trust  tliat 
to  none  we  shall  give  offence.  We  confess  ourselves  not 
indifferent  to  the  good  opinion  of  the  virtuous,  and  intelligejit, 
of  every  order  in  society.  Nor  is  any  thing  further  from  our 
intention  than  a  design,  by  any  thing  that  we  may  say,  to 
foster  a  sectarian  spirit.  We  Avill  not,  if  it  can  be  avoided, 
"  widen  the  branch,  already  too  capacious,  between  christians 
of  different  denominations."  We  do  not  imagine  that  every 
excellence  is  confined  to  our  own  ranks,  nor  are  we  reluctant 
to  acknowledge  the  children  of  God  wherever  they  may  be 
found.  On  the  other  hand,  we  deprecate,  with  equal  earnest- 
ness, that  spirit  of  liberalism  which  hesitates  not  to  sacrifice 
the  commandments  of  God  to  the  courtesies  of  religious 
intercourse.  If  the  pious  tenor  of  a  consistent  christian  life, 
which  embodies  our  own  principles,  with  unconcealed  free- 
dom, candor,  and  affection  to  all,  will  do  so,  we  shall  secure 
the  favorable  regard  of  our  brethren  of  every  class.  But  if 
their  kind  consideration  demands  a  departure  from  the  inspired 
law,  we  must  not,  we  dare  not,  pay  the  price.  Jehovah 
alone  is  legislator  in  his  own  kingdom.  He  has  formed  un- 
alterably its  government,  and  institutions.  It  is  ours,  not  to 
repeal,  change  his  laws,  or  add  to  their  number,  but  humbly, 
and  faithfully,  to  obey  him  in  all  things. 

We  have  one,  and  only  one,  favor  to  ask,  on  this,  or  on  any 
other  subject  in  relation  to  either  our  docti'ine  or  practice  ;  it  is 
that  we  may  be  patiently  heard  in  our  own  defence,  and  have 
awarded  to  us  a  candid  and  impartial  verdict.  If,  when  so 
judged  by  the  law  of  God,  we  are  fairly  convicted  of  material 
error,  we  will  not  shrink  from,  nor  seek  to  avert  the  sentence 
of  condemnation.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  are  clearly  sus- 
tained, we  shall  confidently  expect  to  receive  the  ingenuous 
approval  of  the  wise  and  the  good,  oi  evciy  denoinii'iauon. 


»i£C.JUN  Ml 
THSOLOGICAI 

^t^it^x  A I  jT^  U  ^- 

TERMS    OF    COMxMUNION. 


CHAPTER  I. 

WE    ARE    AT    LIBERTY    TO    ADOPT    NO    TERMS    OF    COMMUNION 
NOT  ESTABLISHED  BY  JESUS  CHRIST. 

Definitions — General  object — Several  opinions — Our  own  doctrines 
defined — Nature  of  positive  laws — Scripture  proofs — Their  general 
application — Their  particular  application — Powers  of  a  Church — 
Church  representatives— Rights  of  individuals — Error  of  new  testa 
of  fellowship — Consequences  of  violating  the  principles  advocated. 

Communion  is  friendly  intercourse.  Its  existence  does 
not  necessarily  imply  the  presence  of  religion.  The  word  is 
not  the  less  applicable,  whatever  may  be  the  character  of  the 
parties,  the  objects  they  pursue,  or  the  motives  which  bind 
them  together.  All  famihar  converse,  and  consultation,  Is 
communion. 

Christian  Communion  is  christian  intercourse.  This  is 
fully  developed  when -those  who  love  the  Redeemer,  are 
associated  in  consultation,  in  prayer,  in  conversation,  in 
co-operation  for  the  benefit  of  each  other,  for  the  advancement 
of  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  and  the  salvation  of  sinners.  A 
late  learned  writer  bears  testimony  to  the  correctness  of  this 
exposition  when  he  say s^—"  Every  expression  of  fraternal 
regard,  every  participation  in  the  enjojnnent  of  social  worship, 
every  instance  of  tiie  unity  of  the  spu'it  exerted  in  prayer  and 

21 


22  DEFINITION    OF    COMMUNION. 

supplication,  or  in  acts  of  cln-istian  sympatliy  and  fiiendship," 
truly  belongs  to  the  communion  of  saints.  "  It  extends  to  all 
the  modes  by  which  believers  recognize  each  other  as  mem- 
bers of  a  common  head." 

Sacramental  Communion  is  a  joint  participation  in  the 
Lord's  Supper.  Those  who  unite  at  the  sacred  table,  and 
together  receive  the  eucharist,  have,  with  each  other,  sacra- 
mental communion. 

This  solemn  act  of  divine  worship  is  called  a  sacrament^ 
not  on  account  of  any  mystery  now  supposed  to  be  attached 
to  it,  either  in  its  nature  or  effects,  but  because  it  is  a  public 
declaration  of  allegiance  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  We  also 
denominate  it  the  eucharist,  because  it  is  an  act  of  personal 
adoration  and  thanksgiving  to  God.  It  is  the  united  social 
reception  of  the  appointed  emblems  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  the  Redeemer,  offered  as  a  sacrifice  for  our  salvation,  in 
the  benefits  of  which  we  become  interested  through  faith. 

If  in  these  expositions  we  do  not  materially  err,  it  will  be 
clearly  seen  that  communion  is  of  three  kinds — general, 
christian,  and  sacramental.  With  the  first  we  have,  at 
present,  nothing  to  do.  The  second  we  should  not  now 
consider,  biU  because  it  is  so  universally  and  improperly 
confounded  with  the  third.  Christian  communion  and  sacra- 
mental communion  are  two  distinct  things.  Either  may  be 
in  full  and  perfect  exercise  without  the  existence  of  the  other. 
A  gentleman,  for  example,  is  eminently  religious ;  I  am 
delightfully  associated  with  him  in  the  service  of  the 
Redeemer ;  we  "  take  sweet  counsel  together,  and  walk  to 
tlie  house  of  God  in  company ;"  but  he  has  never  been  bap- 
tized, and,  therefore,  cannot,  without  a  violation  of  the  law 
of  Christ,  go  with  me  to  the  Lord's  table.  Another  comes 
to  the  holy  supper.  I  have,  personally,  no  confidence  in 
liim  as  a  christian,  and  never  associate  with  him  as  siiclk 


DEFINITION    OF    COMMUNION.  23 

Tills,  however  is  only  my  own  private  opinion.  lie  is  in 
fellowship  in  llie  church.  He  comes  according  to  the  law. 
I  cannot  debar  him.  With  him  I  sit  dowm  to  the  eiicharist. 
It  will  be  seen  by  tliese  facts,  tliat,  widiout  any  inconsistency, 
indeed,  as  a  matter  of  necessity,  I  have  christian  communion 
with  those  with  whom  I  have  no  sacramental  communion, 
and  sacramental  communion  with  tliose  with  whom  I  have 
no  christian  communion. 

Between  Baptists  and  the  members  of  all  the  sun'ounding 
evangelical  denominations,  I  tmst,  and  believe,  that,  in  all 
respects,  the  most  free  and  perfect  christian  communion 
exists,  and  will  continue  to  be  sedulously  cultivated.  We 
ciierish  for  tliem,  as  the  people  of  God,  the  sincerest  affection ; 
Ave  preach,  pray,  and  labor  together ;  consult  and  co-operate 
for  the  spread  of  tlie  Gospel;  and  take  pleasure  in  being 
associated  with  them  "in  every  good  word  and  work." 
Nothing  would  be  more  pleasing  to  us  than  to  go  with  them 
to  the  Lord's  table,  but  we  are  repelled  by  the  fact  that  a 
preliminary  duty  is  essential,  and  with  this  they  have  not 
complied.  We  decline  sacramental  communion,  not  alone 
with  those  who  can  offer  no  satisfactory  testimony  of  their 
soundness  in  the  faith,  or  their  purity  of  moral  character,  but, 
yielding  unqualified  obedience  to  inspired  rules,  and  not 
without,  in  some  degree,  the  concuiTjence  of  the  several  Pedo- 
baptist  chiu'ches  in  our  interpretation  of  them,  also  with 
christians,  however  endeared,  who  have  not  been  baptized. 
liCt  us,  then,  in  defence,  and  explanation,  of  our  course  in 
this  particular,  proceed  to  consider  the  laws  of  the  LonVs 
Supper ;  the  preliminary  preparation  for  its  reception; 
our  reasons  for  declining  a  participation  luith  those  tv/io 
violate  the  principles  upon  which,  in  our  opinion,  it  is 
based ;  the  policy  of  a  strict  adherence  to  divine  laws ) 
and  our  claims,  in  doing  so,  to  be  considered  as  consult' 


24  DEFINITION    OF    COMMUNION. 

ing'f  by  the  only  effectual  means,  the  union  and  harmony 
of  the  body  of  Christ. 

Jesus  Christ  has  established  in  his  Church  terms  of 
communion.  In  the  general  truth  of  this  proposition,  I 
beheve,  all  denommations  concur.  Beyond  this  point  agree- 
ment ceases.  The  several  varieties  of  sentiment  prevailing 
may,  perhaps,  with  sufficient  distinctness,  be  arranged  under 
three  general  heads. 

Those  of  the  first  class  hold  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  decide 
what  Christ  has  appointed  as  terms  of  communion.  They 
teach  us  that  the  whole  matter  is  involved  in  so  much  dark- 
ness, and  ambiguity,  that  it  is  impossible  to  arrive  at  any 
certainty  in  relation  to  it.  On  this  view  of  tlie  case,  it  is 
necessary  to  offisr,  in  this  place,  but  a  single  remark.  If  it  is 
just,  our  condition  is  precisely  the  same  that  it  would  have 
been  had  no  terms  of  communion  been  designated.  The 
whole  investigation  is  of  no  consequence,  nor  can  our  con- 
clusions involve  any  practical  obligations.  It  is  evidently 
preposterous  to  imagine  that  we  can  be  responsible  for  our 
obedience  to  a  law,  the  import  of  which  no  ordinary  mind  is 
able  to  discover. 

The  second  class  profess  to  have  embraced  the  more 
reasonable  and  consistent  doctrine,  that  the  terais  of  commu- 
nion, as  appointed  by  the  Redeemer,  are  sufficiently  plain  and 
definite  to  be  readily  comprehended  and  exacdy  observed  by 
every  Christian.  They  have,  however,  added  the  unsup- 
ported and  injurious  notion  that  authority  is  granted  to  the 
Church  to  vary  them,  at  least  in  some  particulars,  to  dispense 
with  them,  or  to  adopt  others  of  a  dilFerent  character,  wlien 
she  may  think  such  a  course  necessary,  for  purposes  of  dis- 
cipline, or  of  conciliation,  to  preserve  her  purity,  or  to  extend 
her  power  and  influence. 

The  third  class  maintain  that  Jesus  Christ  has  established 


posiTivr.  Axn  moral  lwv^.  35 

aJl  the  terms  of  communion  we  are  at  liherty,  under  any 
circumstances,  to  recognize ;  that  in  liis  word  lliey  are  so  per 
fectly  obvious  as  readily  to  be  understood  by  every  inquirer  ; 
that  his  church  is  obliged  faithfully  to  conform  to  them  in 
eveiy  respect ;  and  that  we  are  not  permitted  to  cliange,  or 
dispense  with  any  of  them,  or  to  add  to  their  number.  'JMiese 
are  the  sentiments  we  have  ourselves  embraced,  and  shall 
now  attempt  to  sustain  their  correctness.  We  sliall  be  aided 
m  our  efforts  in  tliis  particular,  if  we  consider,  for  a  moment, 
the  nature  of  the  laws  by  which  this  sacred  institution  is 
governed. 

The  Lord's  Supper,  Uke  baptism,  is  estabhshed  hy  positive 
law.  The  obligations  of  obedience  to  this  code  differ  from 
those  enjoined  by  moral  law  in  several  important  particulars. 
For  our  purpose,  at  present,  it  is  sufficient  to  observe,  that 
the  duties  imposed  by  moral  law  are  right  in  themselves ; 
they  are  founded  in  the  nature  of  things  ;  and  proceed  upon 
tlie  unchanging  principles  of  justice  between  man  and  man, 
and  between  man  and  his  Maker.  Those  commanded  by 
positive  law  are  right  for  no  other  reason  than  because  tliey 
are  commanded.  They  are  based  solely  upon  the  authority 
of  the  Lawgiver,  and  are  designed  to  test  our  disposition  to 
bow  to  his  requirements.  The  difference  between  them  is 
plain.  The  former  or  moral  code,  is  commanded  because  it 
is  right ;  the  latter  or  positive  code,  is  right  because  it  is 
commanded. 

In  these  distinctions  and  obsen^ations  I  advance  no  novel 
or  pecuhar  sentiment.  The  pious  and  learned  of  all  ages  and 
denominations  fully  concur  with  us.  In  proof  of  this  state- 
ment I  might  refer  to  numerous  authorities,  but  I  will  satisfy 
myself  with  two  only.  Dr.  Owen  says: — "That  principle 
that  the  church  hath  power  to  institute  and  appoint  any  thino-, 
or  ceremony,  belonging  to  the  worship  of  God,  either  as  to 
3 


XU  LAW    OF    THE    «:ACRAMRNT3. 

matter,  or  to  manner,  beyond  tlie  orderly  observanee  of  sueh 
ci  renins  lances  as  necessarily  attend  such  ordinances  as  Christ 
liimselt'  has  instituted,  lies  at  the  bottom  of  all  the  horrible 
sujierstition  and  Avars,  that  have  for  so  long  a  season  spread 
themselves  over  the  face  of  the  Christian  world  ;  and  it  is  the 
design  of  a  great  part  of  the  Revelation  of  John — to  make  a 
discovery  of  tliis  ti'uth."* 

Bishop  Hoadly  is  still  more  in  point.  He  says  : — "  The 
partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  not  a  duty  of  itself,  or  a 
duty  apparent  to  us  from  the  nature  of  things,  but  a  duty  made 
such  to  Christians  l)y  the  jjosifive  institution  of  Jesus  Christ. 
All  positive  duties,  or  duties  made  such  by  institution  alone, 
depend  entirely  on  the  will  and  declaration  of  the  person  who 
histitutes  or  ordains  them  with  respect  to  the  real  design  and 
end  of  them,  and  consequently  to  the  due  manner  of  perform- 
ing them.  For  there  being  no  other  foundation  for  them  with 
regard  to  us,  but  the  will  of  the  institutor,  this  will  must,  of 
necessity,  be  our  sole  direction,  both  as  to  our  understanding 
tlieir  true  mtent,  and  practising  them  accordingly ;  because  we 
can  have  no  other  direction  in  this  sort  of  duties,  unless  we 
will  liave  recourse  to  mere  invention,  which  makes  them  our 
own  institutions,  and  not  the  institutions  of  those  who  first 
appointed  them.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  nature,  the 
design,  and  the  due  manner  of  the  Ijord's  Supper,  must,  of 
necessity,  depend  on  what  Jesus  Christ,  who  instituted  it,  has 
said  about  it."t 

As  an  institution  brought  into  existence  by  positive  law, 
the  observance  of  which  is  enjoined  as  a  proof  of  our  love, 
the  words  of  the  statute  which  exacts  the  communion  are  the 
only  rule  of  obedience.  This  is  a  sufficient  rule ;  and  if  it 
were  otherwise,  we  could  not  arrive  at  any  knowledge  of  our 

*  Commun.  witli  God,  part  2,  ch.  5,  p.  169. 
t  Works,  vol.  3,  p.  845,  &c. 


INSPIRED    STATl.TES.  27 

duty  respecting  it  by  absh'art  or  analogical  reasoning,  becaii.-e 
such  reasoning  does  not  apply  to  tliis  class  of  laws.  It'  any 
tiling  is  dedncted  from  it,  or  added  to  it,  this  at  once  makes 
it,  in  the  language  of  Bishop  Hoadly,  our  own,  and  not  the 
institution  of  Jesus  Christ. 

These  views  of  the  question  before  us  are  not  without  tlie 
amplest  support  from  the  word  of  God.  Respecting  the  ritual 
as  well  as  other  services  of  the  Old  Testament,  Jehovah  has 
said  : — "  Ye  shall  not  add  unto  the  word  which  I  command 
yon,  neither  shall  ye  diminish  aught  from  it ;  that  ye  may 
keep  the  commandments  of  the  Lord  your  God,  which  I  com- 
mand you."*  This  law  is  frequently,  and  in  various  fonns, 
repeated  to  the  children  of  Israel ;  and  by  the  prophets  they 
are  often  upbraided  for  their  v/ant  of  conscientious  and  literal 
compliance.  By  Malachi  the  Lord  says  to  them: — "Even 
from  tlie  days  of  your  fathers  ye  are  gone  away  from  m.ine 
ordinances,  and  have  not  kept  them.  Return  unto  me,  and  I 
will  reuirn  unto  you,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts.  But  ye  said — 
Wherein  shall  we  return?"!  That  equal  stress  is  laid  by 
Jehovah  on  a  similar  conformity  to  the  ritual  commands  in  the 
New  Testament  is  abundantly  evident.  To  John  the  Baptist 
Christ  said — "  Thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all  righteous- 
ness ;"±  and  to  his  disciples — "  If  ye  love  me,  keep  my  com- 
mandments."§  The  apostle,  referring  to  the  same  subject, 
thus  addresses  the  Corinthians — "  Now  I  praise  you,  brethren, 
that  ye  remember  me  in  all  things,  and  keep  the  ordinances 
as  I  delivered  them  to  you."l|  At  the  close  of  the  inspired 
canon,  as  if,  by  his  parting  words,  solemnly  to  impress  every 
heart  v/ith  the  importance  of  the  admonition,  Christ  empha- 
tically says — "  If  any  man  shall  add  unto  these  things,  God 
shall  add  unto  him  the  plagues  that  are  written  in  this  book/' 

*  Deut.  iv.  8.  t  Mai.  iii.  7.  t  Matt.  iii.  15. 

^  John  xiv.  15.  11  1  Cor.  xi.  2. 


28  INSPIRED    STATUTES. 

Tliese  passages  selected,  almost  at  random,  from  the  mul- 
titude with  which  the  holy  word  abounds,  together  with  the 
admitted  nature  and  obligations  of  positive  laws,  most  amply 
establish  the  great  truth,  that  to  his  commandments  we,  as 
Christians,  are  under  the  most  solemn  obligations  to  conform, 
without  addition,  diminution  or  change.  Let  us  now  apply 
the  deductions  at  which  we  have  arrived,  to  tlie  subject  gene- 
rally, and  particularly  to  our  duty  with  regard  to  the  divinely 
appomted  terms  of  communion. 

They  are  obviously  susceptible  of  a  general  application. 
A  church,  for  example,  is  a  voluntary  association.*  No  one 
enters  it,  on  Baptist  principles,  but  by  the  free  and  unbiassed 
consent  of  his  own  will.  When  he  has  done  so,  or  in  the 
act  itself,  he  is  not  at  hberty  to  give  influence  to  any  motive, 
or  to  be  guided  by  any  laws  other  than  those  revealed  and 
approbated  by  Jehovah.  The  same  remarks  are  true  even 
of  civil  society  in  all  its  forms.  Men  are  at  liberty  to  choose 
whether  they  will  live  in  solitude  or  in  company  with  others. 
If  they  detennine  upon  the  latter  alternative,  as  God  has  pre- 
scribed the  principles  upon  which  the  association  shall  be 
formed,  they  dare  not  enter  it  in  contravention  of  his  enact- 
ments. They  may  not  do  so,  for  instance,  on  the  principle 
that  a  majority  may  control  the  consciences  of  the  minority, 
or  interfere  with  the  rights  and  duties  of  parents  and  children, 
or  of  husbands  and  wives.  For  these  facts,  besides  the  'law 
of  God  on  the  subject,  there  are  most  substantial  reasons. 
The  former  would  despoil  men  of  their  character  as  moral 
agents  ;  and  the  latter  would  remove  the  responsibility  from 
the  only  persons  who  will  feel  its  weight,  and  who,  therefore, 
■jxe  likely,  with  fidehty,  to  perform  the  duties  involved  in  these 
relations. 

*  See  Dr.  Wayland's  Extent  of  Human  Responsibility,  pp.  128,  &c., 
some  of  whose  sentiments  I  have  copied. 


RIGHTS    OF    ClIUKCH    MEMBERS.  29 

The  right  of  admission  to  membership  m  the  church  is 
estabUshed,  in  any  specified  case,  by  the  proof  that  the  can- 
didate is  conformed  in  heart  and  in  Ufe  to  the  requirements 
of  tlie  Gospel.  Such  a  man  cannot  be  withheld  from  all  the 
ordinances  and  privileges  of  the  church,  provided  he  receive 
tliem  as  they  are  enjoined.  And  while  he  continues  to  ob- 
serve tlie  divine  rule,  he  is  entided  to  enjoy  them.  He  is 
under  law  to  God,  no  other  is  obligatory,  or  admissible. 
When  we  form,  with  our  fellow  Christians,  the  ecclesiastical 
tie,  we  promise  merely  to  obey  Christ,  and  while  we  do  this, 
as  we  have  never  pledged  ourselves  to  obey  the  commands 
of  each  other,  every  man  is  as  free  of  his  brother,  as  his  bro- 
ther is  of  him.  We  are  bound  to  obey  Christ,  and  no  one 
else.  Such  is  the  only  rational  exposition  of  true  chrislian 
liberty.  The  church  has  no  authority  as  a  body  to  make 
laws  for  us,  nor  can  she  enforce  any,  but  the  laws  of  Christ. 
We  have  never  sun-endered  to  her  such  right.  An  attempt 
to  exercise  it,  therefore,  to  say  nothuig  of  its  despotism,  would 
be  a  violation  of  the  spirit  of  religion,  and  a  manifest  infrac- 
tion of  the  statutes  of  Jesus  Christ  already  recited.  No  man, 
whatever  may  be  the  dignity  of  his  office ;  nor  company  of 
men,  however  large,  or  wise,  or  sincerely  desirous  to  do  good, 
can  change  any  tiling  which  Jesus  Christ  has  appointed,  ab- 
solve our  obligations  to  the  least  of  his  commandments,  or 
make  biiuhng  any  thing  he  has  not  required.  The  church  has 
no  such  power,  and  consequently  can  neither  exercise  it  her- 
self, nor  delegate  it  to  others. 

These  inductions  apply  to  all  ecclesiastical  bodies  of  every 
description,  district  associations,  general  associations,  councils, 
state  and  church  conventions,  and  every  other.  Each  of 
tliese,  like  a  single  church,  is  a  society  of  which  Christ  is  m 
fact,  if  not  confessedly,  the  head,  and  sole  Legislator.  None 
of  them  have,  consequendy,  any  more  authority  in  thia  cha- 

ij* 


30  ECCLESIASTICAL    BODIES. 

racter  tlian  they  would  ha^'e  in  the  separate  churches  of 
\vhich  they  are  composed.  The  powers  not  bestowed  by 
Jesus  Christ  are  withheld  for  wise  and  benevolent  purposes, 
their  exercise  is,  therefore,  prohibited.  No  legislative  powers 
are  granted  by  him  to  any  church,  or  combination  of 
churches,  or  individual,  or  body  of  ministers,  or  any  otlier 
-.issociation  whatever.  If  not,  they  are  clearly  prohibited. 
God  has,  indeed,  in  his  word,  nowhere  more  emphatically 
cnjomed  obedience  to  his  laws,  than  he  has  interdicted  the 
exercise  by  us  in  any  conceivable  capacity  of  all  such  powers 
for  any  purpose  imaginable.  It  is  treason  against  high  Hea- 
ven to  presume  that  any  object  the  Gospel  proposes  to  accom- 
plish, cannot  best  be  secured  by  the  means  which  Christ  has 
himself  appointed.  We  may  be  asked  what  poAver  then  is 
granted,  and  whether  we  would  fetter  the  church,  and  leave 
her  fast  bound  in  inextricable  ti'ammels  ?  I  answer,  executive 
only;  and  this  is  sufficient  for  all  desirable  purposes.  Our 
duty  is  to  obey,  not  to  command,  and  only  when  we  are 
found  in  conformity  to  this  principle  are  we  happy  and  useful. 
We  regard  a  knowledge  and  belief  of  these  doctrines  the 
more  important,  because  there  is  really  no  stable  medium 
between  them  and  all  the  absurdities  of  popery.  Suppose 
we  surrender  these  fundamental  truths,  and  allow  that  the 
church,  or  the  ministry,  either  in  person,  or  by  their  repre- 
sentatives, or  in  any  other  manner,  may  make  laws^  binding 
on  the  consciences  of  men,  or  modify,  change,  or  dispense 
with  any  estabhshed  by  Messiah,  where  do  we  find  ourselves  ? 
All  the  hoiTors  of  poper)''  are  at  once  in  view.  The  whole 
hideous  superstructure  of  that  corrupt  church  finds  a  license 
and  support  in  the  assumption  that  she  has  the  power  to  rule 
men  by  her  enactments  as  a  legislative  body,  in  faith  and 
practice.  Grant  this,  and  all  the  requisite  ability  is  conveyed, 
and  if  it  is  not  now,  it  may  soon,  with  impunity,  be  exercised 


NECESSARY    GUARDS.  3i 

The  principle  is  tlie  same,  whether  adopted  by  Papists  or 
Protestants.  "  If  my  conscience  is  to  be  bound  by  my  fellow- 
men,"  says  Dr.  Wayland,  "  it  matters  not  whether  these  men 
be  a  conclave  of  bishops  and  carchnals,  or  whether  they  be 
my  brethren  whom  I  meet  every  day,  and  with  whom  I  sit 
down  around  the  same  communion  table.  My  brethren  will, 
I  doubt  not,  use  their  usurped  authority  more  mildly,  but  this 
alters  not  the  fact  that  the  authority  is  usurped,  nor  does  it 
offer  any  ^larantee  that  it  may  not,  in  the  end,  be  as  op- 
pressive as  the  other." 

I  designed,  hov^^ever,  to  make  of  the  doctrine  under  con- 
sideration, more  especially,  a  particular  application  to  the  case 
in  hand. 

If  the  obligations  of  the  divine  law  are  imperative,  and  the 
declarations  of  the  word  of  God  are  what  we  have  represented 
them  to  be,  and  it  is  hardly  possible  we  can  be  mistaken,  it 
follows  that  no  exigencies  or  circumstances  can  exist,  which 
will  authorize  us  to  dispense  with  any  quaUfications  to  mem- 
bership in  the  church  which  Christ  has  required ;  to  adopt 
any  terms  of  communion  he  has  not  established ;  or  to 
demand  of  a  candidate  any  thing  which  he  has  not  demanded. 
I  am  aware  that  numerous  and  most  specious  reasons  are 
often  pleaded  for  a  violation  of  these  principles.  It  is  con- 
tended that  in  this  manner  the  church  may  be  defended  from 
encroachments,  her  doctrines  be  preserved  pure,  and  many 
important  and  useful  designs  be  gready  facilitated.  But  is  it 
possible  that  such  can  l>e  the  case?  The  opinion  is  dis- 
honorable to  Christ,  and  essentially  popish.  When  its  practice 
has  been  attempted,  as  it  often  has,  although  for  a  time  the 
results  have  appeared  to  favor  the  accomplishment  of  the 
objects  proposed,  they  have  ultimately  proved  themselves  to 
be  evils  a  hundi'ed  fold  more  enormous  than  those  they  were 
intended  to  remedy.     What  has  Christ  hmiself  made  the 


32  POINTS    OF    DANGER. 

terms  of  communion  ?  This  is  the  only  inquiry  permitted, 
and  to  it  the  Gospel  affords  a  plain  and  definite  reply.  If 
what  we  wish  to  enjoin  is  not  commanded  by  him,  we  dare 
not  require  it;  if  it  is,  we  dispense  with  it  at  our  peril. 
"  What  thing  soever  I  command  you,"  says  Jeliovali, 
"  observe  to  do  it.  -  Thou  shalt  not  add  thereto,  nor  diminisli 
from  it."  Christ  is  the  sole  Legislator.  No  one  may  make 
laws  but  himself.  It  is  his  church,  not  ours.  Our  designs 
may  be  benevolent,  our  purposes  honest,  and  our  objects 
good ;  but  the  powers  of  which  we  speak  are  his  alone,  and 
we  have  no  more  right  to  assume  them  for  a  good  object, 
than  we  have  to  accomplish  purposes  known  to  be  evil. 

The  department  of  the  Gospel,  however,  in  which  even 
intelligent  and  sincere  Christians  are  most  liable  to  infringe 
upon  the  doctrines  now  established,  is  that  wherein  the  great 
Lawgiver  has  enjoined  upon  his  people  only  a  particular 
temper  of  mind,  the  motives  to  excite  which  he  has  suggested, 
but  has  not  specified  the  outward  manner  of  its  manifestation. 
It  may  be  asked  whether,  in  such  cases,  the  church  may  not 
adopt  RULES  for  the  guidance  of  her  members,  such  as  she 
may  think  wise  and  salutary  ?  I  answer,  unhesitatingly,  in 
the  negative.  Where  Christ  has  made  no  laws,  we  are  at 
liberty  to  allow  none.  He,  for  example,  has  ordered  me  to 
be  temperate,  to  love  the  souls  of  my  fellow  sinners,  and  to 
do  good  to  all  men.  These  the  church  may  and  ought  to 
require.  If  I  violate  the  laws  of  temperance  she  is  under 
obligations  to  debar  my  approach  to  the  holy  table.  But  she 
has  no  authority,  by  way  of  enforcing  more  effectually  the 
duty  in  question,  or  on  any  other  pretence,  to  oblige  me  to 
join  a  temperance  society ;  nor,  if  I  think  proper  to  adopt 
this  method  of  manifesting  my  sense  of  obligation,  dare  she 
prohibit  me  from  exercising  my  inherent  riglit  to  act  in  the 
case  according  to  my  convictions  of  duty.     The  church  may 


BENEVOLENT    SOCIETIES.  33 

assure  me  ihat  if  I  do  not  love  tlie  souk  of  men  I  cannot 
enjoy  her  fellowship,  because  it  is  impossible  that  he  wlio 
does  not  cherish  this  spirit  can  be  a  disciple  of  the  Redeemer. 
But  she  is  not  permitted  to  prescribe  to  me,  as  the  manner 
of  evincing  the  required  disposition,  that  I  shall  join  a  benevo- 
lent society — Missionaiy,  Education,  Biljle,  or  any  other. 
Nor,  if  I  think  proper  to  select  this  method  of  manifesting  my 
love,  has  she  any  right,  such  as  is  exercised  by  the  New 
'J'est  churches  of  the  South-west,  to  enact  a  prohibition,  and 
make  obechence  to  her  order  a  condition  of  my  approach  to 
the  Lord's  table.  Such  a  transaction  is,  as  we  have  seen, 
essentially  popish,  and  cannot,  if  persisted  in,  but  be  attended 
with  the  most  disastrous  consequences.  It  is  a  departure 
from  the  plain  path  in  which  Christ  has  commanded  us  to 
walk,  and  may  lead  we  know  not  whither.  As  a  precedent 
it  will  justify  all  the  enormities  which  have  been  exercised  by 
the  Roman  see,  and  with  which  the  world  has  been  cursed 
for  a  thousand  years.  It  is,  in  fact,  the  same  thing  in  naiTOW 
circumstances,  and  upon  a  small  scale,  and  nothing  is  wanting 
but  the  secular  sword  for  its  enforcement,  to  enstamp  upon  it 
the  same  character  of  atrocity  and  blood.  If,  by  sordid 
selfishness,  I  show  myself  destitute  of  love  to  God  and  the 
souls  of  men,  the  church  ought  to  withdraw  from  me  her 
fellowship.  But  to  do  so  because  I  clioose  to  exercise  my 
discretion  as  to  the  mode  of  manifesting  my  christian  spirit, 
while  I  evince  that  I  do  possess  the  required  temper  of  heart, 
is  to  dispense  with  the  laws  of  Christ,  and  assume  the  right 
to  institute  other  tenns  of  communion  than  those  which  he 
has  appointed,  a  usurpation  of  authority,  and  a  violation  of 
the  divine  injunctions,  against  which  it  is  the  duty  of  every 
sincere  Christian  to  enter  his  immediate  and  most  solemn 
protest. 

The  truth  of  the  proposition  is,  I  ti'ust,  rendered  without 


34  CHRISTIAN    LIBERTY. 

further  argument  sufficiently  apparent,  that  we  are  not  at 
Uberty  to  admit  any  terms  of  communion  but  those  estabhshod 
by  Jesus  Christ  himself,  the  only  Lawgiver  of  his  people. 
We  have  now  considered  briefly,  the  definition  of  communion, 
stated  our  ol^iject,  and  seen  the  various  opinions  which  have 
prevailed,  in  regard  to  it,  defined  our  own  position,  illusn-ated 
the  nature  of  positive  laws,  which  is  the  code  that  governs 
the  sacrament,  recited  inspired  commands,  precepts  and 
admonitions,  requiring  undeviating  obedience  on  the  part  of 
the  people  of  God,  shown  that  Christ  has  established  all  the 
laws  we  are  at  liberty,  under  any  circumstances,  to  recognize, 
that,  in  his  word,  they,  are  so  plain  and  obvious  as  readily  to 
be  understood  by  every  inquirer,  that  his  church  is  obliged 
faithfully  to  conform  to  them  in  every  respect,  and  that  we 
are  not  permitted  to  change,  or  dispense  Avith  any  of  them,  or 
to  add  to  their  number.  Of  these  conclusions  we  have  made 
a  general  and  a  particular  application,  illustrated  the  awful 
consequences  of  departing  from  the  principles  we  advocate, 
and  have  seen  that  they  bear  with  all  their  force  upon  the 
terms  of  communion  as  established  by  Christ,  requiring  us  to 
receive  those  enjoined  by  him,  and  to  repudiate  all  others, 
from  whatever  quarter,  or  authority,  they  may  have  been 
derived.  From  these  conclusions  no  Baptist,  who  deserves 
the  name,  will,  I  am  assured,  dissent.  And  to  admit  their 
correctness,  what  Christian  of  any  church  can  hesitate,  who 
has  adopted  the  immortal  maxim  of  Chilling-worth,  so  often 
avowed  in  theory  and  violated  in  practice,  and  which  deserves 
to  be  written  in  letters  of  gold  upon  every  sanctuary  in  which 
man  bows  in  the  worship  of  his  Maker : — "  The  Bible,  the 
Bible  alone,  is  the  religion  of  Protestants."  *• 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE     SCRIPTURAL     TEipiS     OF     COMMUNION    AT     THE     LORd's 
TABLE  DESIGNATED  AND  PROVED. 

Repentance,  faith,  and  baptism  are  terms  of  communion — English 
authors — Hudson  River  Association  circular — The  apostolic  com- 
mission is  the  law  of  communion — The  order  of  the  sacraments — • 
Their  order  in  the  primitive  Churches — Emblematical  representa- 
tions— Inspired  injunctions  regarding  the  perpetuity  of  primitive 
order — By  whom  the  sacraments  are  to  be  administered — How 
received — Conclusion. 

What  are  the  Scriptural  tenns  of  communion  ?  To  this 
inquiry  it  is  not,  I  think,  difficult  to  furnish  a  satisfactory- 
reply.  I  answer,  and  to  sustain  this  proposition  is  the  object 
of  the  present  chapter,  that  they  are  repentance,  faith,  and 
baptism.  Between  our  own  and  the  several  Protestant 
Pedobaptist  denominations,  there  is,  except,  perhaps,  our 
Methodist  brethren,  who  admit  "seekers"  to  the  Lord's 
table,  as  "  a  means  of  gi'ace,"  in  some  sort,  an  agreement  on 
this  subject.  I  say  in  some  sort,  because,  it  may  be,  we 
totally  disagi-ee  as  to  what  faith,  repentance,  and  baptism  are, 
yet  they  require  exercises  and  acts  to  which  they  give  these 
names.  With  these  explanations  I  remark,  that  however  it 
may  have  formerly  been,  when  infant  communion  was  prac- 
tised, we  all  now  concur  in  maintaining  that  the  candidate,  to 
quahfy  him  for  the  sacred  supper,  must,  at  least,  be  a  sincere 
penitent,  must  believe  himself  regenerated,  that  he  must  not 
have  forfeited  his  claims  by  immorality  since  his  profession, 
nor  by  falling  into  heresy,  and  that  he  must  have  been 
baptized. 

35 


36  TERMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

The  principal  works  on  botli  sides  of  the  question,  M'hether 
baptism  is  required  as  a  preUminary  to  the  Lord's  Supper, 
befi^nning  with  that  of  the  .pious  John  Bunyan,  entitled, 
"  Water  baptism  not  a  term  of  communion,"  and  extending 
down  to  our  own  times,  have  been  carefully  re-examined, 
and  their  arguments  will  be  reviewediin  the  proper  place,  as 
much  at  length  as  the  brevity  of  this  volume  will  permit. 
After  comparing  the  deductions  of  tliem  all  wdlh  the  word  of 
God  on  the  subject,  I  am,  if  possible,  still  more  fully  con- 
vinced that  my  original  conclusions  are  correct.  The  Hudson 
River  Association,  in  a  circular  written  by  Rev.  Dr.  Cone,  of 
New  York,  has  presented  the  true  exposition  of  the  doctrine 
in  question.  "  'I'he  children  of  God,"  says  that  Association, 
"  are  bound  to  give  thanks  always  to  their  heavenly  Father, 
because  he  hath  chosen  them,  from  the  beginning,  to  salva- 
tion, through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the 
ti'uth,  whereunto  they  are  called  by  the  Gospel ;  and  then, 
as  hvely  stones,  are  built  up  a  spiritual  house,  a  holy  priest- 
hood, to  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices,  acceptable  to  God  by 
Jesus  Christ ;  and  to  manifest  their  attachment  to  the  laws, 
docti'ines,  and  ordinances  once  delivered  unto  the  saints.  If 
the  primitive  churches  received  only  such  as  professed  to  be 
born  of  God,  and  gave  evidence  that  they  were  begotten  again 
unto  a  lively  hope  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the 
dead,  we  sliould  imitate  their  example  ;  and  if  there  come  unto 
us  any,  and  bring  not  this  doctrine,  we  are  commanded  not  to 
receive  them  into  our  houses,  neither  to  bid  them  God  speed ; 
for  he  that  biddeth  them  God  speed  is  partaker  of  their  evil 
deeds :  and  how  can  Ave  more  fully  do  this  than  to  receive 
them  to  our  communion?  All  candidates,  therefore,  for 
communion  or  membership,  must  give  evidence  that  they 
are  born  again.  This  is  the  first  Scriptural  term  of  commu- 
nion ;"  and  the  second  is,  that  they  shall  have  entered  the 


THE    ARGUMENT    FROM    THE    COMMTSSTON.  37 

clnircli  by  baptism.  "  Should  this  fundamental  principle 
ever  be  abandoned,  I  hesitate  not  to  believe  the  fine  gold  will 
become  dim,  die  glory  will  depart  from  us,  and  the  vengeance 
of  him  wlio  walketh  in  the  midst  of  tlie  golden  candlesticks 
may  be  fearfully  appreliendod." 

The  inspired  law  regidating  the  preliminaries  of  the  com- 
munion, is  the  commission  of  the  aposdcs.  On  tliis  point 
the  lamented  Judd,  in  his  truly  learned  and  triumphant 
Review  of  Stuart,*  jusdy  remarks:  "The  Saviour,"  in 
tliis  statute,  requires  "  his  ministers  to  go  into  all  nations, 
and  preach  the  Gospel,  liaptizing  those  who  believe,  with  the 
promise  that  he  will  be  wi;h  them,  to  aid  and  bless  them,  till 
the  end  of  the  world.  As  long,  then,  as  it  is  the  duty  of 
ministers  to  preach,  and  of  siiuiers  to  believe,  so  long  it  will 
be  the  duty  of  believers  to  be  baptized.  In  other  words, 
while  tlie  economy  of  grace  is  continued,  that  is,  to  the  end 
of  the  world,  baptism  must  be  the  appropriate  badge  of  the 
Christian  profession.  So  likewise  the  communion  is  enjoined 
on  the  church  till  the  second  coming  of  Christ."  In  reladon 
to  die  divine  injunction  instituting  the  sacrament  itself,  Paul 
gives  us  the  following  account :  "  I  have  received  of  the  Lord 
that  which  I  also  dehvered  unto  you,  that  the  Lord  Jesus, 
the  same  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed,  took  bread,  and 
when  he  had  given  thanks,  he  brake  it,  and  said — Take ; 
eat ;  this  is  my  body  which  is  broken  for  you.  'iliis  do  in 
remembrance  of  me.  After  die  same  manner,  also,  he  took 
the  cup,  when  he  had  supped,  saying — This  cup  is  the  New 
Testament  in  my  blood.  This  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it, 
in  remembrance  of  me.  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and 
di-ink  this  cup,  ye  do  show  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come:'^^ 


*  P.  120.     To  whom  I  ffladly  acknowledse  my  indebtedness  on  this 
part  of  the  subject,  and  whose  lau^uage  I  shall  tretiueutly  employ. 
t  1  Cor.  xi.  23—26. 

4 


38  TF.RMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

The  whole  inquiry  to  be  decided  in  this  argument  is, 
whether  the  several  duties  commanded  in  the  apostolic  com- 
mission are,  as  we  have  intimated,  to  be  observed  in  the  order 
in  which  they  were  enjoined  by  Christ — first,  to  hear  the 
Gospel,  then  to  believe,  afterwards  to  be  baptized,  and  finally 
to  partake  of  the  Lord's  supper ;  or  are  they  left  to  be  regu- 
lated by  the  convenience  or  inclination  of  the  disciples.  The 
former  conclusion  is  maintained  by  us,  and  in  which  we 
have,  substantially,  the  concurrence  of  most  of  the  Pedobap- 
tist  world ;  the  latter  is  defended  by  our  opponents,  consisting 
principally  of  open  communion  Baptists.  Of  this  class  of 
polemical  writers,  incomparably  the  most  learned  and  vigorous 
is  the  late  Rev.  Robert  Hall,  of  England.  He  remarks — 
*'  It  has  been  inferred,  too  hastily,  in  my  opinion,  that  we  are 
bound  to  abstain  from  their  communion" — that  of  unbaptized 
persons-—"  whatever  judgment  we  may  form  of  their  sincerity 
and  piety.  Baptism,  it  is  alleged,  is,  under  all  possible 
circumstances,  an  indispensable  term  of  communion;  and, 
however  highly  we  may  esteem  many  of  our  Pedobaptist 
brethren,  yet,  as  we  cannot  but  deem  them  unbaptized,  we 
must,  of  necessity,  consider  them  as  unqualified  for  an 
approach  to  the  Lord's  table.  It  is  evident  that  this  reason- 
ing rests  entirely  on  the  assumption  that  baptism  is,  invariably, 
a  necessary  condition  of  communion — an  opinion  which  it  is 
not  surprising  the  Baptists  should  have  embraced,  since  it  has 
long  passed  current  in  the  Christian  world,  and  been  received 
by  nearly  all  denominations  of  Christians."*  His  own  con- 
clusions he  states  in  another  place — in  the  following  terms : 
*'  It  remains  to  be  considered  whether  there  is  any  peculiar 
connection  between  the  two  ordinances  of  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  supper,  either  in  the  natiu-e  of  things,  or  by  divine 
appointment,  so  as  to  render  it  improper  to  administer  ttio 

*  Worki,  vol.  ii.  p.  212. 


THE    ARGUMENT    FROM    THE    COSiyUSHlOS.  39 

one  without  the  other.  That  there  is  no  natural  connection 
is  obvious.  They  were  instituted  at  different  times,  and  for 
diflerent  purposes  ;  baptism  is  a  mode  of  professing  our  faith 
in  the  blessed  Trinity ;  the  Lord's  supper  is  a  commemora- 
tion of  the  dying  love  of  the  Redeemer ;  the  former  is  the  act 
of  an  individual,  tlie  latter  of  a  society.  The  words  which 
contam  our  warrant  for  the  celebration  of  the  eucharist,  con- 
vey no  allusion  to  baptism  whatever ;  those  which  prescribe 
baptism  carry  no  anticipative  reference  to  the  eucharist.  To 
all  appearance  the  rites  in  question  rest  upon  independent 
grounds.  But  perhaps  there  is  a  special  connection  between 
the  two,  arising  from  divine  uppointmenf.  If  this  be  the 
case,  it  will  be  easy  to  point  it  out.  Rarely,  if  ever,  are  they 
mentioned  together,  and  on  no  occasion  is  it  asserted,  or 
msinuated,  tliat  die  validity  of  the  sacrament  depends  on  the 
previous  observance  of  the  baptismal  ceremony."* 

1  pause  not  now  to  consider  the  discrepancies  of  these 
opinions  of  the  learned  gentleman,  such  as  that  baptism  is 
a  mode,  and  not  the  mode  of  professing  our  faith ;  that  the 
Lord's  supper  is  an  ordinance,  not  of  an  individual,  but  of  a 
church,  and  therefore  baptism  is  not  a  condition  of  its  recep- 
tion, as  if  persons  could  be  lawfully  in  the  church  without 
baptism ;  and  several  others.  These  and  many  more  of  a 
similar  character  we  shall  examine  when  we  come  to  reply 
to  the  objections  which  have  been  made  to  our  deductions. 
The  exposition  of  Mr.  Baxter,  is  much  more  Christian-like, 
natural,  and  evidendy  correct :  "  This  paramount  law  of  the 
great  Institutor,  the  commission,  is  not  like  some  occasional 
historical  mention  of  baptism,  but  is  the  very  command  of 
Christ,  and  purposely  expresseth  their  several  works,  in  their 
several  places  and  order.  Their  first  task  is,  by  teaching,  to 
make  disciples,  wliich  Mark  calls  believers.     The  second 

*  Vol.  ii.  pp.  218,  219. 


40  TERMS    OP    COMMUNION. 

work  is  to  baptize  them.  The  third  work  is  to  teach  them 
all  other  things  which  are,  afterwards,  to  be  learned  in  the 
school  of  Christ.  To  contemn  this  order,  conthiues  Mr. 
Baxter,  "  is  to  renounce  all  rules  of  order,  for  where,"  he 
asks,  "can  we  expect  to  find  it,  if  not  here?"*  That  this 
order  is  divinely  prescribed  we  propose  now  to  prove,  by 
the  apostolic  commission  itself,  by  the  example  of  the 
apostles,  and  by  the  design  of  the  two  institutions. 

That  the  order  indicated  is  divinely  prescrilDcd,  is  proved, 
in  the  first  place,  by  the  tenor  of  the  apostolic  commission 
itself. 

"  Go  ye,  therefore,"  said  Messiah,  "  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things, 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you ;  and,  lo,  I  am  with  you 
alway,  even  unto  die  end  of  the  world. "t  This  is  "  the 
STATUTE,  emphatically,  of  the  Christian  Church."  It 
is  one  complete  whole,  of  Avhich  the  distinct  laws  command- 
ing the  propagation  of  the  gospel,  the  exercise  of  faith,  the 
duty  of  baptism,  and  visible  church  fellowship,  form  so  many 
separate  sections ;  each  occupying  its  appointed,  and  there- 
fore, unchangeable  place.  The  disposition  with  regard  to 
time  in  which  these  duties  were  first  brought  into  being,  and 
which  is  here  preserved,  although  not  wholly  irrelevant  to 
the  argument,  is  still  of  comparatively  inferior  importance ; 
but  the  arrangement  in  which  they  are  commanded  to  be 
observed,  is  that  in  which  they  must  be  obeyed.  A  disregard 
of  this  divinely  ordained  series  is  most  clearly  a  violation  of 
tlie  law.  The  order  of  the  duties  is  as  imperative  as  the 
duties  themselves.  The  command  requires  us,  in  tlie  first 
place,  to  preach  the  gospel,  and,  in  the  second  place,  to  bap- 

*  Disp.  of  Right  to  Sacra,  pp.  91,  149,  150. 
t  Mark  xvi.  15,  16  :  Mat.  xxviii.  19,  20. 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  THE  COMMISSION.       41 

tize  those  who  beheve.  Now,  instead  of  conforming  in  tliis 
respect,  suppose  we  baptize  men  first,  and  afterwards  preach 
to  them  the  gospel,  in  expectation  tliat  they  will  believe,  is 
not  the  law  violated  ?  Unquestionably.  But  in  what  does 
the  infraction  consist  ?  Simply  in  reversing  the  order  of  our 
obedience.  It  is  just  as  obvious,  therefore,  that  we  are 
restricted  in  the  administi-ation  of  baptism  to  a  certain  defmite 
class  of  subjects,  as  that  we  are  authorized  to  baptize  at  all ; 
for  on  no  rational  principle  of  interpretation  can  the  commis- 
sion be  supposed  to  warrant  the  baptism  of  any,  but  disciples, 
or  such  as  are  taught  and  believe  the  gospel.  If  this  exposi- 
tion is  con-ect,  and  I  presume  all  Baptists  will  admit  it,  since 
if  it  is  not,  baptism  may  be  administered  to  any  one,  although 
not  a  believer,  it  is  equally  clear,  for  precisely  the  same 
reason,  that  baptism  is  an  indispensable  preliminary  to  that 
part  of  church  fellowship  of  which  the  Lord's  supper  is  con- 
sidered as  an  expression.  If  the  former  part  of  our  Lord's 
commission  is  authoritative  in  the  order  of  its  successive 
injunctions  as  well  as  in  the  injunctions  themselves,  and  this 
is  fully  conceded,  the  latter  part  of  it  certainly  cannot  be  less 
so.  Is  it  possible  the  order  of  it  can  be  binding  in  one  part, 
and  discretionary  in  another !  If  baptism  is  not  necessary  to 
communion,  faith,  for  the  same  reason,  is  not  necessary  to 
baptism ;  for  it  may  certainly  be  as  conclusively  maintained 
that  the  second  duty  must  precede  the  third  as  that  the  first 
must  precede  the  second.  We  cannot  but  believe  that  teach- 
ing and  faith  are  intentionally  enjoined  as  the  first  duty. 
Baptism,  therefore,  is  intentionally  enjoined  as  the  second, 
and  visible  church  fellowship  as  the  third  duty ;  and  we  are 
no  more  at  liberty  to  invert  the  order  in  the  latter  case  than 
we  are  in  the  former.  We  maintain,  then,  with  exactly  the 
same  authority  and  conclusiveness  that  baptism  should  pre- 
cede cOiUmunion,  as  that  faiih  should  precede  baptism.  The 
4^ 


42  TERMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

two  positions  must  stand  or  fall  together.  If  we  abandon  tlie 
one  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  adhere  to  the  other.  The  same 
argiuTients,  consequently,  which  make  us  open  communion- 
ists  make  us  at  the  same  time  Pedobaptists.  But  if  we  per- 
severe in  our  principles,  and  baptize  believers  only,  then  it 
follows  Jhat  to  administer  the  Lord's  supper  to  unbaptized 
persons,  even  if  they  are  undoubtedly  converted,  is  a  manifest 
violation  of  the  rule  by  which  Christ  governs  his  churches. 
Without  obedience  to  the  law  we  have  no  right  to  expect  the 
fulfilment  of  the  promise.  Christ  may  bless,  with  his  pre- 
sence and  favor,  those  who  disregard  his  injunctions,  but  he 
has  not  covenanted  to  do  so.  Ths  statute  has  not  been 
abrogated,  or  changed.  He  designed  that  it  should  be  obli- 
gatoiy  as  long  as  the  promise  attached  to  it  remains  in  force- 
till  he  shall  come  the  second  time,  without  sin,  unto  salvation. 
That  the  order  in  which  the  several  duties  are  enjoined  in 
the  commission  is  divinely  prescribed,  is  thus  conclusively 
established  by  the  commission  itself.  The  same  fact  is,  in 
the  second  place,  plainly  confirmed  by  the  example  of  the 
apostles. 

These  holy  men  were  instructed  to  go,  ultimately,  into 
all  the  world,  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature,  but, 
for  the  present,  they  were  required  to  wait  at  Jersusilem 
until  they  should  receive  power  from  on  high — the  rcquwite 
endowments  by  the  Spirit  of  God — to  qualify  them  for  the 
great  work  of  organizing  among  our  fallen  race  the  kingdom 
of  the  Redeemer.  Fifty  days  from  the  resun-ection  of  Christ 
had  elapsed.  The  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  come.  It  was 
the  glorious  Christian  sabbath.  The  followers  of  Messiah 
were  assembled  together  "  with  one  accord."  Thus  in  ex- 
pectation of  the  fulfilment  of  the  Father's  promise,  they  ^vc.r8 
associated.  "  Suddenly  there  came  a  sound  from  hea^fn, 
as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the  place  wlrJ-re 


THE    ARGUMENT    FROM    APOSTOLIC    EXAMPLE.  43 

tliey  were  sitting.     And  there  appeared  unto  tliem  cloven 
ton^'-Lies,  like  as  of  lire,  and  it  sal  upon  each  of  them.     And 
they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  began  to  speak 
with  other  tongues  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance."     A 
flood  of  light  now  burst  upon  their  minds.     No  longer  were 
tlicy  in  darkness  m  relation  to  any  christian  duty,     'i'he  pro- 
phetic Scriptures,  as  well  as  the  doctrines  they  had  received 
from  the  hps  of  the  Saviour  liimself,  shone  forth  in  all  their 
transparent  brilhancy,  and  they,  for  the  first  time,  fully  and 
con-ectly,  conceived  the  spiritual  and  heavenly  nature  of  die 
kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ.     The  fame  of  these  occurrences 
went  out,  and  a  numerous  crowd  were  soon  attracted  to  die 
place  of  the  apostohc  assembly.     The   apostles  now  pro- 
ceeded in  their  great  work  by  an  address  to  the  muldtude,  in 
relation  to  die  mission,  the  character,  death,  resurrection,  and 
ascension  of  Christ ;    the   reasonableness  and  necessity  of 
faith  in  him  for  salvation;  and  the  awM  consequences  of 
despising  and  rejecting  his  Gospel.     "  The  "  word  of  truth 
and  soberness,"  simple  indeed  in  its  aiTangement  and  enun- 
ciation, but  might}^  in  power,  was  carried  with  overwhehning 
conviction  to  the  consciences  of  the  auditors.     They  at  once 
perceived  their  danger,  the  enormity  of  their  guilt,  and  cried 
out,  in  the  anguish  of  their  hearts :— "  Men  and  brethren, 
what  shall  we  do  ?"  To  this  anxious  inquiry  Peter  responded 
— "  Repent,  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  sliall  re- 
ceive the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  for  the  promise  is  unto  you, 
and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  e^^en  as  many 
as  the  Lord  our  God  shaU  call."*     The  number  of  the  peni- 
tents became  exceedingly  great.     They  recoived  die  divine 
declaration  of  mercy  with  joy,  came  forward  unhesitatingly, 
and  boldly  avowed  themselves  converts  to  die  Christian  faidi. 
*  Acts  ii.  38,  &c. 


44 


TERMS    OF    COMMUNION 


The  apostles  were  now  called  upon  to  give  a  practical  ex- 
position of  their  sense  of  the  duties  confided  to  them  by  the 
supreme  Legislator.  Examine  their  procedure,  and  it  will  be 
found  to  accord  precisely  with  the  order  in  which  they  are 
prescribed  in  the  commission — "  Then  they  that  gladly  re- 
ceived his  word  were  baptized."  They  first,  preached; 
secondly,  the  people  believed;  thirdly,  they  that  believed 
were  baptized ;  and,  fourthly,  they  that  gladly  received  the 
word  and  were  baptized,  "  continued  steadfastly  in  the  apos- 
tles' doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  in  breaking  of  bread, 
and  in  prayers" — those  acts  expressive,  generally,  of  church- 
fellowship,  and,  particularly,  of  sacramental  communion. 

Thus  was  formed  and  ordered,  upon  the  model  drawn  by 
Christ  himself,  the  first  Gospel  church.  The  aposdes  who 
executed  his  commands  were  under  the  special  inspiration 
and  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  That  the  organization  of 
this  church  was  faultless,  all  will  admit.  Nor  Avill  any  one 
hesitate  to  concede  that  it  v/as  designed  as  "a  pattern"  for 
all  succeeding  churches,  to  the  end  of  time.  Its  essential 
features  were,  accordingly,  preserved,  uniformly,  in  all  the 
churches  gathered  by  the  apostles,  at  sul^sequent  periods,  and 
in  diiTerent  countries.  Not  to  admit  this  fact  would  involve 
an  absurdity  too  glaring  for^ny  man  of  judgment  to  tolerate, 
besides  a  direct  contradicdon  of  several  positive  declarations 
contained  in  the  Gospel  history.  "For  this  cause,"  says 
Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  "  I  have  sent  unto  you  Timotlieus, 
who  is  my  beloved  son,  and  faithful  in  the  Lord,  who  shall 
bring  you  into  remembrance  of  my  ways  which  be  in  Christ, 
as  I  teach  every  lohere  in  all  the  churches.'^*  All  the 
aposdes  spoke  and  taught  the  same  things.  They  never 
countermanded  in  one  church  what  they  had  ordered  and 
taught  in  anodier.     At  Jerusalem  they  required  faith  as  a 

*  1  Coi.  iv.  17. 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  APOSTOLIC  TEACHING.  45 

preliminary  to  baptism,  and  baptism  as  a  condition  to  the 
Lord's  supper,  or  "breaking  of  bread."  The  order  they 
estabUshed  in  one  church  was  the  order  of  every  churcli ; 
therefore,  faith  and  baptism  were,  in  primitive  times,  invari- 
ably, teniis  of  communion.  No  instance  can  be  found  in  which 
any  person  was  received  into  the  church,  and  admitted  to  enjoy 
its  privileges,  without  them. 

After  havmg  heard,  and  believed  the  inspired  message, 
baptism  was,  without  an  exception,  required  as  the  very  first 
act  of  obedience,  and  the  Lord's  supper  was  always  subse- 
quent.    This  was  the  course  pursued,  as  we  have  seen,  at 
Pentecost.     When   the  people  of  Samaria  believed   Pliilip 
preaching  the  things  concernhig  the  kingdom  of  God,  they 
were  not  received  immediately  to  the  communion,  but  were 
first  baptized.     When  Paul,  being  opposed  by  the  Jews  at 
Corinth,  tiu-ned  to  the  Gentiles,  we  are  told :— "  Many  of  the 
Cormthians,  hearing  beheved,  and  were  baptized."  And  when 
the  Holy  Spirit  fell  on  the  Gentile  converts  at  Cesarea,  evincing 
to  the  apostles  that  God  had  accepted  them,  "  he  commanded 
them  to  be  baptized."     In  no  instance,  until  they  had  sub- 
mitted to  baptism,  were  the  disciples  ever  permitted  to  ap- 
proach the  holy  table.     We  could  multiply  examples,  but  it 
is  unnecessary.     Search  the  New  Testament  in  every  part ; 
scrutinize  the  history  of  individuals,  and  of  churches  ;  and  as 
far  as  the  events  of  the  times  have  been  written,  the  series 
of  the  commission,  without  a  doubt,  go\'erned  all  their  acts. 
Faith  is  uniformly  antecedent  to  baptism,  and  baptism  is  as 
constandy  required  as  a  preparation  for  the  communion.     In 
the  constitution  and  discipline  of  all  the  apostolic  churches, 
tliis  rule  is  never  violated.     Can  we  see  all  these  facts,  and 
fail  to  be  convinced.as  to  the  mterpretation  of  the  commission 
received  by  the  first,  and  inspired  teachers  of  rehgion  ?    Their 
recorded  example  proves  that  diey  conducted  all  their  adminis- 


46  TERMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

trations  with  scnipulous  regard  to  the  order  of  its  several  le- 
quirements.  Faith  and  baptism,  therefore,  are  ordained  by 
Jehovah,  unchangeably,  as  terms  of  communion,  and  their 
position,  with  respect  to  each  other  disiincdy  fixed,  cannot  be 
changed  witliout  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  law  of  God. 

That  the  order  in  which  the  several  christian  duties  are 
enjoined  in  the  apostohc  commission  is  divinely  prescribed 
is,  in  the  third  place,  proved  by  the  design  of  the  two  insti- 
tutions. 

The  sacraments  of  the  Gospel  are  emblematical  represen- 
tations of  great  and  glorious  facts.  It  may  be  said  of  them 
that  they  constantly  hold  up  to  our  view  the  torch  of  truth, 
that  we  may  avoid  error  in  our  knowledge  and  practice  of  the 
word  of  life.  It  will  be  our  wisdom  not  to  permit  "  the  light 
that  is  in  them  to  become  darkness  !"  If  we  do,  "  how  gi'eat," 
perplexing,  and  melancholy  "  will  be  that  darkness  !"  "  The 
true  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,"  says  Dr.  Watcrland,  "  and  the 
atonement  of  Christ,  have  been  kept  up  in  the  Christian  church 
by  the  institudons  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  more 
than  by  any  other  means  whatever."  Dr.  Ryland  observes 
— "  These  last  legacies  of  a  dying  Saviour,  these  pledges  of 
his  eternal  and  immutable  love,  ought  to  be  received  with  the 
greatest  reverence,  and  the  warmest  gratitude.  And  as  they 
relate  direcdy  to  the  death  of  the  great  Redeemer,  which  is 
an  event  the  most  interesting,  an  action  the  most  grand  and 
noble,  that  ever  appeared  in  the  world,  they  ought  to  be  held 
in  the  highest  esteem,  and  performed  with  the  utmost  solem- 
nity. Of  these  institutions  bapdsm  calls  for  our  first  regard, 
as  it  is  appoin  ted  to  be  first  performed. ' '  *  The  venerable  Booth 
speaks  more  direcdy  with  reference  to  their  metaphorical  bear- 
ings : — "  In  submitdng  to  bapdsm  we  have  an  emljlem  of  our 
union  and  communion  wiUi  Jesus  Christ,  as  our  great  repre- 

*  Beaut}'  of  Social  Religion^  p.  10. 


THE  nF.STCN'  OF  TUT.  ORDTXAXrE.  47 

sentnlive,  in  his  Joatli,  burial  and  resiirrection,  at  the  siame 
lime  declaring  that  we  '  reckon  ourselves  to  be  dead  indeed 
inito  sin,  but  alive  unto  God,'  and  that  it  is  our  desire  aa  well 
as  our  duty  to  live  devoted  to  him.  And  as  in  baptism  we 
profess  to  have  received  spiritl^al  life,  so  in  communicating  at 
the  Lord's  table  we  have  the  emblems  of  that  heavenly  food 
by  which  we  live,  by  which  we  grow,  and  in  virtue  of 
which  we  hope  to  live  for  ever.  And  as  we  are  bom  of 
God  but  once,  so  we  are  baptized  but  once ;  but  as  our  spi- 
ritual life  is  maintained  by  the  continued  agency  of  divine 
gi'ace,  and  the  comforts  of  it  enjoyed  by  the  habitual  exercise 
of  faith  in  a  dying  Redeemer,  so  it  is  our  duty  and  privilege 
frequently  to  receive  the  holy  supper."*  Baptism,  therefore, 
being  the  emblem  of  the  reception  of  life,  and  the  eucharist 
of  the  food  by  which  we  are  sustained,  the  metaphorical  re- 
presentation requires  that  baptism  should  always  be  received 
as  a  condition  of  communion,  since  we  must  necessarily  live 
before  we  are  capable  of  receiving  the  food  by  which  life  is 
supported.  "Baptism,"  says  Mr.  Judd,  in  his  late  able  Re- 
view, "  as  an  emblematical  representation  of  death  and  resur- 
rection, exhibits  the  believer  as  a  new  creature ;  as  born 
again,  and  becoming  a  child  of  God,  and  a  subject  of  Christ's 
kingdom.  Of  course  the  proper  position  of  the  initiating  ordi- 
nance is  at  the  commencement  of  this  new  relation.  The 
nature  and  fitness  of  things  seem  to  require  that  it  should  be 
the  first  public  act  after  believing.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Lord's  supper  is  a  communion,  or  social  commemoration  of 
the  Saviour's  dying  love,  and,  therefore,  necessarily  a  church 
ordinance,  and  not  obligatory  on  the  Christian  until  he  has 
entered  by  baptism  into  a  church  relation." 

We  are  now,  I  trust,  prepared  to  say  confidently  that  the 
order  of  proceeding  for  which  we  contend  agrees  widi  the 

*  Booth's  Vindication  in  Bap.  Manual. 


48  TF.HMS    or    rOMMUMOlV. 

time  in  which  the  two  instllntions  were  appointed,  with  the 
words  of  the  commission  in  wliich  the  observation  of  them 
was  enjoined,  witli  the  invariable  practice  of  the  inspired 
apostles  and  primitive  churches,  and  with  the  emblematical 
representations  of  the  two  ordinances.  It  is,  therefore,  die 
order  of  ti'uth,  the  order  of  propriety,  the  order  of  duty,  tlie 
order  divinely  prescribed,  the  desecration  of  which  cannot 
take  place  without  a  palpable  breach  of  the  fundamental  statute 
enacted  by  God  for  the  government  of  his  people  until  the 
end  of  the  world.  It  was  doubtless  with  respect  to  their 
relative  positions  as  well  as  to  the  institutions  themselves,  and 
other  duties,  that  the  apostles  were  so  particular  as  we  find 
them  to  have  been,  in  admonishing  the  churches.  The  ordi- 
nances delivered  to  them  they  were  assured  had  been,  by 
themselves,  received,  immediately,  from  the  Lord  Jesus, 
They  insisted,  therefore,  that  they  should  conform  to  them, 
they  commanded  their  obedience  in  these  particulars,  they 
cautioned  them  of  neglect,  and  exhorted  them  to  perseverance. 
They  had  a  right  to  do  this,  because  they  were  ministers  and 
stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God.  Guided  by  the  spirit  of 
truth,  they  ga\^e,  also,  in  all  these  particulars,  an  infallible 
expression  ol  the  mind  of  Christ."  "  I  have,"  say  they, 
"  received  of  tlie  Lord  Jesus  that  which  also  I  delivered  unto 
you."*  "  Be  ye  followers  of  me,  even  as  I  am  of  Christ. 
Now  I  praise  you,  brethren,  that  ye  remember — /.i^i^vy^-'ds, 
follow — me  in  all  things,  and  keep  the  ordinances  as  I  dcU- 
vered  them  to  you."t  "  I  beseech  you,  be  ye  followers  of 
me.  For  this  cause  I  have  sent  unto  you  Timotheus,  my 
beloved  son,  and  faithful  in  the  Lord,  who  shall  bring  you  into 
remembrance  of  my  ways,  which  be  in  Christ,  as  I  teach 
every  where,  in  every  church. "J  "  Brethren,  be  ye  followers 
of  me,  and  mark  them  which  walk  so,  as  ye  have  us  for  an 

*  1  Cor.  xi.  23.  '  t  Cor.  xi.  1,2.  t  1  Cor.  iv.  16,  17. 


APOSTOLIC    EXHORTATIONS.  49 

ensamplc."*  "  Thougli  I  ])c  absent  in  the  flesh,  yet  am  I 
with  you  in  the  spirit,  joying,  and  beholding  your  order,  and 
the  steadfastness  of  your  faith  in  Christ.  As  ye  have  there- 
fore received  Christ  Jesus  tlie  Lord,  so  walk  ye  him ;  rooted, 
and  built  up  in  him,  and  established  in  the  faith  as  ye  have 
been  taught,  abounding  therein,  with  thanksgiving.  Beware, 
lest  any  man  spoil  you  through  pliilosophy  and  vain  deceit, 
after  the  traditions  of  men,  after  the  rudiments  of  the  world, 
and  not  after  Christ.'"!  "  Therefore,  my  brediren,  stand  fast, 
and  hold  the  traditions  which  ye  have  been  taught,  whether 
by  word,  or  our  episde."."!:  Such  are  the  inspired  exhorta- 
tions and  mstructions  addressed  to  us  regarding  our  unde- 
viating  observance,  in  its  primitive  form,  and  with  all  its  pre- 
liminaries and  concomitants,  of  tliis  sacred  institution. 

That  the  eucharist  ought  to  be  administered  by  a  regularly 
authorized  minister  of  the  Gospel,  I  take  it  for  gi-anted,  is  ad- 
mitted by  all,  for  the  same  reasons  that  apply  in  the  adminis- 
ti'ation  of  baptism. 

I  have  several  times  alluded  to  the  fact  that  this  ordinance 
is  to  be  received  by  us  in  a  social  capacity.  I  shall  not  stop 
now  to  elaborate  tliis  proposition.  If  any  one  is  disposed  to 
assume  the  opposite,  he  will,  of  course,  feel  himself  obliged 
to  sustain  his  hypothesis  by  the  requisite  testimony. 

It  is  now  sufficiently  evident  that  the  sul^ject  before  us  is 
not  an  exception  to  the  general  rule,  that  whatever  is  import- 
ant either  m  doctrinal  ti'uth,  or  practical  religion,  is  plainly 
tauglit  in  the  word  of  God.  The  law,  particularly,  by  which 
the  constitution  of  the  Christian  church  is  fixed,  the  qualifica- 
tions of  its  members  denned,  and  the  order  of  its  sacraments, 
and  worship,  established,  is  written  as  with  a  sunbeam  in 
letters  of  light,  and  therefore  so  plain  and  unequivocal  that  it 

*  Phil.  iii.  17.  +  Col.  ii.  5— S.  \  2  Tliess.  ii.  IJ 

5 


50  TERMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

is  difficult  to  conceive  how  it  could,  by  an  honest  mind,  be 
overlooked,  or  misinterpreted. 

I  liave  thus  placed,  as  I  believe,  beyond  the  reach  of  suc- 
cessful controversy,  the  facts  I  proposed  to  establish,  respect- 
ing the  terms  of  communion,  as  prescribed  by  Jesus  Clirist. 
If  tlie  Christian  commission  be  authoritative ;  if  apostolic  ad- 
ministration and  example  are  to  be  regarded ;  if  the  nature 
and  design  of  the  two  ordinances  are  Avorthy  of  notice  in 
setding  their  relative  positions ;  if  the  positive  and  repeated 
injunctions,  and  exhortations  of  the  apostles  to  the  churches, 
to  keep  the  ordinances  as  they  delivered  them  from  the  hands 
of  Christ  to  the  care  and  observance  of  his  people,  be  obliga- 
tory— and  if  all  these  may  be  unheeded  by  us,  what  can  be 
presented  with  sufficient  force  to  claim,  our  attention  ? — then 
must  it  be  admitted  that  repentance,  faith,  and  baptism,  are 
indispensable  qualihcations  for  the  admission  of  a  candidate  to 
the  fellowsliip  of  the  church,  and  that  they  are  the  divinely 
ordained,  and  unchangeable  terms  of  Sacramental  Com' 
mwiion. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  inSTORY  OF  OPINIONS  REGARDING  THE  TERMS  OF  COM 
MUNION  SHOWS  THAT  OUR  DOCTRINES  HAVE  BEEN  UNIVER- 
SALLY EMBRACED  ON  THE  SUBJECT. 

Baptism  has  been  held  in  all  ages,  and  by  all  denominations,  to  be  a 
divinely  prescribed  preliminary  to  the  Lord's  Supper— Dr.  Priestley's 
opinions — Testimonies  in  proof,  Justin  Martyr,  Jerome,  Austin,  Bede, 
Theophylact,  Bonaventure,  Frid.  Spanheim,  Lord  Chancellor  King, 
Austin-s  rule— Modern  divines— Wall,  Doddridge,  Manton,  Dwight, 
all  the  Catechisms  and  Confessions  of  Faith — Robert  Hall.  * 

The  history  of  opinions  regarding  the  divinely  ordained 
temis  of  communion  at  the  Lord's  table,  affords  the  amplest 
testimony  that  the  conclusions  to  which  we  have  been  con- 
ducted on  the  subject  are  not  wholly  noA'el,  nor  peculiar  to 
our  cliiirch.  Baptism  especially,  and  in  purer  communities 
and  later  times,  repentance  and  faith  also,  have  been  held  as 
indispensable  prerequisites,  the  first,  certainly,  by  all  sects 
and  denominations  in  all  ages  and  m  eveiy  country,  from  the 
days  of  the  aposdes,  until  within  the  last  two  hundred  years, 
during  which  period  some  of  our  own  people  have  seceded ; 
and  their  opinions,  set  fordi  so  ably  and  eloquently  by  Bun- 
yan  and  Hall,  have  been  embraced,  probably,  by  a  few  indi- 
viduals of  Pedobaptist  churches.  "  Before  the  grand  Romish 
apostacy,"  says  Mr.  Booth,  "in  the  very  depths  of  that 
apostucy,  and  since  the  Reformation,  both  at  home  and  abroad, 
tJie  general  practice  has  been  to  receive  none  but  baptized 
pcpoons  to  communion  at  the  Lord's  table."  I  may  add  that, 
during  a  thousand  years,  as  I  shall  hereafter  take  occasion 

51 


52  TERMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

fully  to  demonstrate,  the  practice  was  as  invariable  to  admit, 
and  require  to  come  to  the  communion,  all,  whether  infants 
or  others,  who  had  received  the  baptismal  rite.  And,  indeed, 
many  of  those  who  have  the  sagacity  to  perceive  tlie  incon- 
sistency of  abandoning  Pedo-communion,  while  they  adhere 
to  Pedo-baptism,  still  insist  that  as  baptism  is  required  as  a 
preliminary  to  communion,  so  ail  those  who  receive  it  are 
entitled  and  should  be  immediately  brought  to  the  eucharist. 
T)\\  Priestley  may  be  refen-ed  to  as  an  example  of  this  class 
of  writers.  "No  objections,"  says  he,  "can  be  made  to 
tJiis  custom" — of  giving  the  Lord's  supper  to  infants — "but 
what  may,  with  equal  force,  be  made  to  the  custom  of  bap- 
tizing infants."  He  adds,  "  Infant  communion  is,  to  this 
day,  the  practice  of  the  Greek  churches,  of  the  Russians,  the 
Armenians,  the  Maronites,  the  Copts,  the  Assyrians,  and, 
probably,  all  other  Oriental  churches."* 

In  regard,  however,  to  the  object  especially  before  us,  I 
shall  sustain  the  proposition  that  baptism  has  ever  been  re- 
garded as  an  essential  preparation  for  the  Lord's  Supper  by 
competent  proof.  I  begin  with  the  earliest  Christian  fathers, 
and  shall  quote  at  least  one  accredited  writer  in  every  cen- 
tury, or  in  every  two  or  three  centuries,  down  to  our  times, 
and  ihus  make  the  truth  of  the  statement  I  have  submitted  no 
longer  a  matter  of  doubt.f 

Justin  Martyr  wrote  about  A.  D.  150,  not  more  than  fifty 
years  after  the  death  of  the  apostle  John.  On  the  subject 
before  us,  he  says :  "  This  food  is  called  by  us  the  eucharist, 
of  which  it  is  not  la^vfid  for  any  to  partake,  but  such  as  be- 
liove  the  things  that  are  taught  by  us  to  be  tme,  and  have 
been  baptized.":}: 

*  Address  to  Protest.  Dissent.,  po.  28,  31. 
t  Vide  Booth's  Vindication,  Part  first. 
X  Apol.  2,  p.  102,  apud  Suicerus. 


INCONSISTEN'CY.  53 

Jerome,  confessedly  one  among  the  most  learned  and  can* 
did  of  the  fathers,  wrote  about  A.  D.  400.  He  says,  "  Cate- 
chumen! communicare  non  possunt,  etc. — Catechumens  can- 
not communicate  at  die  Lord's  table,  being  unbaptized."* 

Austin,  who  wrote  about  A.  D.  500,  maintaining  the  abso- 
lute necessity  of  administering  the  Lord's  supper  to  infants, 
remarks :  "  Quod  nisi  baptizati,  etc. — Of  which  certainly  they 
cannot  partake  unless  they  are  baprized."t 

Bede,  who  flourished  about  A.  D.  700,  nan-ates  the  fol- 
lowing incident:  "  Three  young  men,  princes  of  the  Eastern 
Saxons,  seeing  a  bishop  administer  the  sacred  supper,  desired 
to  partake  of  it  as  their  royal  father  had  done.  To  whom 
the  bishop  rephed- — If  you  will  be  baptized  in  the  salutary 
fountain  as  your  father  was,  you  may  also  partake  of  the 
Lord's  supper  as  he  did ;  but  if  you  despise  the  former,  ye 
cannot,  in  any  wise,  receive  the  latter."| 

Theophylact,  in  a  work,  published  about  A.  D.  1100, 
remarks :  "  No  unbaptized  person  partakes  of  the  Lord's 
supper.  "§ 

Bona  venture,  who  wrote  about  1200,  observes,  "Faith, 
indeed,  is  necessary"  to  all  the  sacraments,  but  especially  to 
the  reception  of  tfaptism,  because  baptism  is  the  first  among 
the  sacraments,  and  the  door  to  the  sacraments. "|| 

Frid.  Spanheim,  who  flourished  about  A.  D.  1600,  on  the 
point  before  us  asserts — "  Subjecta  ad  eucharistiam,  etc. — 
None  but  baptized  persons  are  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table. "^ 

Lord  Chancellor  Kuig  wrote  about  A.  D.  1700.  He  says 
— "  Baptism  was  always  precedent  to  the  Lord's  supper ; 
and  none  (ever)  were  admitted  to  receive  the  eucharist  till 

*  In  cap,  6,  Epist.  2  ad  Corinth.  t  Epist.  ad  Bonaf,  Epist.  106. 

t  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  2,  cap.  5,  p.  63.  ^  Cap.  4,  Mat.  p.  S3. 

II  Apud  Forbcsium,  Instruct.  Historic.  Thcol.  lib.  10,  cap.  4,  sect.  9. 
IT  Hist.  Christian  Col.  G23. 

5^ 


54  TERMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

they  were  baptized.     This  is  so  obvious  to  cveiy  man  that  it 
needs  no  proof."* 

These  authorities,  which  I  ha^^e  selected  from  hundreds  in 
my  possession,'  all  of  which  speak  invariably  the  same  lan- 
^lage,  sufficiently  deraonsti'ate  what  has  been  the  doctrine  of 
the  church  in'  every  age.  They  are  quoted  simply  as  wit- 
nesses of  a  matter  of  fact,  in  which  capacity  they  are 
undoubtedly  competent.  I  am  not  unapprised  that  there 
were  people  of  several  classes,  who,  in  the  second  and  third 
centuries,  made  profession  of  the  name  of  Christ,  and  who 
wholly  rejected  baptism.  They,  however,  generally  ti-eated 
the  Lord's  supper  in  the  same  manner.  A  learned  writer 
says  of  them  all,  that,  generally,  they  entirely  renounced  the 
Scriptures  as  the  word  of  God.t  Nor  am  I  ignorant  of  the 
fact,  that  in  the  latter  end  of  the  sixteenth  century,  Socinus,. 
and  his  followers,  considered  the  reception  of  baptism  as 
indifferent,  except  in  reference  to  such  as  are  converted  from 
Judaism,  paganism,  or  mahommedanism.J  But  none  of  the 
denominations  which  prevail  in  our  country,  and  it  is  evident 
that  all  the  respectable  writers  we  have  quoted,  and  others  of 
all  evangelical  churches  concur  with  them,  would  admit  that 
eitlier  these  ancient  corrupters  of  Christianity,  or  the  more 
modern  Socinians,  are  worthy  to  be  called  churches  of  Christ. 

Let  us  now  apply  to  the  decision  of  this  matter  the  cele- 
brated rule  of  Austin,§  and  surely  if  any  doctrine  or  practice 
can,  by  this  means,  be  proved  apostolical,  that  now  under 
consideration  has  claims  to  the  distincdon  not  inferior  to  any 
other,  however  firmly  established.  Dr.  Wall  ti-anslates  it 
thus  : — "  What  the  whole  church,  through  all  the  world,  does 

*  Enquiry,  part  2,  p.  44. 

t  Suicerus  Thesaurus,  Eub.  voce  Ban-rto-fta. 

X  Wall's  Hist.  &c.  part  2.  ch.  5. 

%  De  baptisuio  contra  Doiia.  Lib,  4,  cap.  23, 


THE    HISTORY    OF    OPINION.  55 

practice,  and  yet  it  has  not  been  instituted  by  councils,  but 
has  been  always  been  in  use,  is,  with  very  good  reason, 
supposed  to  have  been  settled  by  authority  of  the  apostles." 
That  it  is  necessary  to  receive  baptism  prior  to  the  Lord's 
supper  is  "what  the  whole  church,  through  all  the  world," 
has  ever  "  practised ;"  it  "  never  was  instituted  by  councils  ;" 
it  has,  also,  "  been  always  in  use."  "  With  A'ery  good 
reason,"  therefore,  is  it  "  supposed  to  have  been  settled  by 
authority  of  the  apostles." 

It  is  now  determined  tliat  we  have  the  concurrence  of  all 
Christians  in  every  age  and  country  in  the  conclusion  that 
baptism,  at  least,  must  always  be  receivt.d  before  the  eucharist. 
To  prove  the  other  part  of  our  proposition — that  we  have,  in 
this  doctrine,  at  the  present  day,  the  unanimous  suffrage  as 
such,  of  all  the  prevaihng  denominations — I  will  briefly  refer 
to  a  few  of  their  most  popular  writers  of  recent  date. 

Dr.  Wall  avers — "  No  church  ever  gave  the  communion 
to  any  persons  before  they  were  baptized.  Among  all  the 
absurdities  that  ever  were  held,  none  ever  maintained  that 
any  person  should  partake  of  the  communion  before  they 
were  baptized."* 

Dr.  Manton  obser^-es — "  None  but  baptized  persons  have 
a  right  to  the  Lord's  table."! 

Dr.  Doddridge  says — "It  is  certain  that  Christians  in 
general,  have  always  been  spoken  of,  by  the  most  ancient 
fathers,  as  baptized  persons.  And  it  is  also  certain  that,  as 
far  as  our  knowledge  of  primitive  antiquity  extends,  no 
unbaptized  person  received  the  Lord's  supper."± 

To  these  decisive  testimonies,  we  will  only  add  that  of 
Dr.  Dwight,  who   thus   expresses  his  opinion — "It  is  an 

*  Hist.  Inf.  Bap.  part  2.  ch.  9, 
t  Sapp.  to  Morn.  Exer.  p.  199.. 
t  Lectures,  p.  510. 


5G 


TFRMS    OF    COMMUNIO.V. 


iRflisponsablc  qualification  for  Uiis  ordinance,  tliat  the  candi- 
date for  communion  be  a  member  of  the  visible  church  of 
Christ,  in  full  staiidiuir.  Hy  this  I  intend,  that  he  should  Ihj 
a  person  of  piety ;  that  he  should  have  made  a  public  profes- 
sion of  reliipon ;  and  tliat  he  should  have  been  baptized."* 

Perfectly  confonnablc  to  these  views  of  tlie  subject  are  the 
catechisms,  and  confessions  of  faith,  that  have  been  published 
at  any  time,  or  by  any  denomination  of  Christi^ms.  If  the 
mention  of  tlie  positive  institiitions  of  Christ  is  not  wholly 
omitted,  baptism  is  not  only  idways  spoken  of  first,  but  gene- 
rally in  sucli  a  way,  if  that  fact  is  not  declared  in  so  many 
words,  as  intimates  that  it  is  regarded  as  a  prerequisite  to  the 
Lord's  t;ible. 

'i'o  botli  these  solemn  appointments  our  Pedobaptist 
breiliren  attach  an  importance  which  we  can  by  no  means 
admit,  and  administer  them  for  purposes  we  cannot  appro- 
bale.  To  these  considerations  we  shall  pay  our  respects  in 
due  time.  Still  we  do  not  derive  the  less  pleasure  from  the 
fact  that  they  agree  with  us,  and  ever  have  done  so,  in  holding 
baptism  as  one  of  the  terms  of  communion,  and,  as  we  have 
before  remarked,  in  purer  communities,  and  later  limes,  that 
they  geneniUy  also  require  both  repentance  and  faith.  So 
Christ  ordered  in  the  commission ;  so  the  aposdes  adminis- 
tered the  discipline  of  tbe  gospel,  and  admonished  all  subse- 
quent churches  to  fi)llow  their  example ;  and  so  have  Cliristiiuis 
conducted  the  liouse  of  God  in  all  ages.  What  more  need 
we  say  firmly  to  settle  tlie  principles  of  our  faitli  ?  In  relation 
to  so  plain  a  truUi  it  is  difiicult  involuntarily  to  err. 

The  influence  of  these  facts  and  consjilerations,  when  they 
come  to  be  understood,  which  must  be  the  case  at  no  distant 
day,  for  the  people  cannot  always  l)e  kept  in  ignonmce  of 
them,  will  be  felt  by  tlie  denominations  around  us.     "  The 

•  Sysl.  Tlicol.  Serm.  IGO. 


ARGUMENTUM    AD    IIOMIXEM.  57 

wide  circulation,"  says  Mr.  Hall,  "of  the  doclriiio,"  tliat 
baptism  must,  agreeably  to  the  law  of  Christ,  be  received 
anterior  to  the  Lord's  supper,  "  ought,  undoubtedly,  to  ha^'e 
the  effect  of  softenuig  the  severity  of  censure  on  that  conduct 
which  is  its  necessary  result;  such  is  that  of  the  great 
majority  of  the  Baptists  in  confining  their  communion  to 
those  whom  they  deem  baptized :  wherein  they  act  precisely 
on  the  same  principle  with  all  other  Christians,  who  assume 
it  for  granted  that  baptism  is  an  essential  preliminary  to  the 
reception  of  the  sacrament.  The  point  on  which  they  differ 
is  the  nature  of  that  institution,  which  we  place  in  immersion, 
and  of  which  we  suppose  rational  and  accountable  agents  the 
only  fit  subjects;  this  opinion,  combined  with  the  other 
generally  received  one,  that  none  are  entidod  to  receive  the 
euchaiist  but  such  as  have  been  baptized,  leads  inevitably  to 
the  practice  which  seems  so  singular,  and  gives  so  much 
offence — tlie  restricting  of  communion  to  our  own  denomxina- 
tion.  Let  it  be  admitted  tliat  baptism  is,  under  all  circum- 
stances, a  necessary  condition  of  church-fellowship,  and  it  is 
hnpossible  for  the  Baptists  to  act  otherwise.  The  recollection 
of  this  may  suffice  to  rebut  the  ridicule  and  silence  the  clamor 
of  those  who  loudly  condemn  the  Baptists  for  a  proceeding 
v/hich,  w^ere  they  but  to  change  their  opinion  on  the  subject 
of  baptism,  their  own  principles  w^ould  compel  them  to 
adopt.  They  both" — Baptists  and  Pedobaptists — "  concur 
in  a  common  principle,  from  which  the  practice  deemed  so 
offensive  is  the  necessary  result.  Considered  as  an  argu- 
mcntmn  ad  homi?icm,  or  an  appeal  to  the  avowed  principles 
of  our  opponents,  this  reasoning  may  be  sufficient  to  shield 
us  fi'om  that  severity  of  reproach  to  which  we  are  often 
expased,  nor  ought  we  to  be  censured  for  acting  upon  a 
system,  Avhich  is  sanctioned  by  our  accusers."* 

*  Works,  vol.  2.  pp.  213,  213. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

REPLY  TO  SUCH  OBJECTIONS  TO  OUR  DOCTRINES  ON  THIS 
SUBJECT    AS    ARE    DERIVED    FROM    THE    PRESUMED    NATURE 

OF  John's  baptism. 

Opinions  of  Mr.  Hall,  that  John's  was  not  Christian  baptism,  and 
therefore  that  the  original  communicants  had  never  been  baptized— 
His  own  reasons  refute  his  conclusions — Contrast  of  John's  with 
Christ's  baptism — Their  respective  formularies — Christ's  desire  to 
conceal  his  own  character — If,  on  account  of  the  objects  designed  to 
be  represented,  John's  was  not  Christian  baptism,  for  the  same 
reasons  the  first  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  not  Chris- 
tian— The  same  correspondence  in  spiritual  import — Difference  in 
the  ordinances  before  and  after  the  death  of  Christ — Arguments  as 
to  time — Mistake  in  regard  to  the  source  of  John's  commission — 
Comparison  between  the  baptism  of  John,  and  of  the  disciples  of 
Christ. 

The  principles  we  have  established  in  the  two  preceding 
chapters,  venerable,  and  almost  universally  received,  as  we 
have  seen  that  they  are ;  enjoined  by  divine  law,  of  which 
there  has  been,  and  can  be  no  repeal,  do  not  appear,  to  tv\^o 
classes  of  logicians,  to  be  satisfactorily  sustained.  Open 
communion  Baptists,  and  some  individuals  among  Pedobap- 
tists,  who  have  been  persuaded  to  adopt  their  opinions, 
dissent.  Their  reasons  it  is  proper  for  us  now  to  examine, 
and  dispassionately  determine  whether  they  are  sufficient  ta 
invalidate  in  any  respect,  or  even  to  weaken  the  force  of  our 
conclusions.  All  the  olijections  Avorthy  of  our  attention  may 
be  arranged  under  three  general  heads  ;  the  presumed  character 
of  die  dispensation  of  John  the  Baptist ;  the  inspired  principles 

5S 


joiix  s  BAP  rrsTvi.  59 

of  cliristian  toleration ;  an  J  the  spiritival  nature  of  tlie  Gospel 
of  Christ.  Besides  these  it  will  be  necessary  to  notice  only 
a  few  of  a  miscellaneous  description.  A  consideration  of  the 
first  I  have  mentioned  will  occupy  the  present  chapter. 

By  Hir  die  most  able  and  successful  individual,  as  a  writer 
and  divine,  who  has  ever  employed  his  pen  in  opposition  to 
restricted  communion,  is,  as  I  have  before  remarked,  tlie  late 
Rev.  Robert  Hall,  of  Bristol.  His  work  on  the  subject  is 
ample,  and  elaborate.  Enjoying  the  unlimited  confidence  of 
all  parties,  he  may  be  considered  as  speaking  by  autliority. 
As  such  we  shall  regard  him.  And  as  we  shall  have  occa- 
sion to  scrutinize  his  opinions  somewhat  at  large,  and  may 
sometimes  be  tempted  to  do  so  with  severity,  I  owe  it  to 
myself  to  say  of  him,  in  advance,  as  he  does,*  of  the  excellent 
Booth :  "  I  tmst  the  free  strictures  which  it  will  be  necessary 
to  maJie  on  his  performance,  will  not  be  deemed  inconsistent 
with  sincere  veneration  for  his  character,  which  I  should  be 
sorry  to  see  ti-eated  with  any  disrespect."  This  learned  and 
eloquent  man  presents  his  proposition  on  the  question  now 
to  be  decided  in  the  following  terms — "It  is  demonstrable 
that  John's  baptism  was  a  separate  institution  from  that 
which  was  enacted  after  our  Lord's  resurrection,"  therefore, 
"  the  Lord's  supper  is  evidently  anterior  to  baptism,  and  the 
original  communicants  consisted,  entirely,  of  such  as  had  not 
receiv*d  that  ordinance. "t 

The  apostles  were  not  baptized,  in  the  Christian  sense  of 
that  term,  at  the  time  the  Lord's  supper  was  instituted ! 
Indeed,  as  they  unquestionably  did  not  afterwards  perform 
that  duty,  they  never  did  receive  christian  baptism  at  all ! 
The  great  mass  of  the  first  Christians,  all,  in  truth,  baptized 
by  John  and  the  disciples,  v/ere  in  the  same  predicament ! 

*  Worl<!^,  vol.  i.  p.  295. 

t  Works,  vol.  ii.  pp.  218,  219. 


CO  TERMS    OF    COM^WUNIOIS:. 

Tlif^se  nre  certainly  strange  opinions.  They  appear  to  us 
palpably  preposterous.  Eat  for  the  respectability  of  their 
origin  they  would  not  be  thought  worthy  of  notice,  or  to  need 
a  single  w^ord  of  refutation.  What,  we  would  ask,  are  the 
reasons  which  induced  Mr.  Hall,  and  weigh  with  his  admirers, 
on  account  of  which  they  imagine  that  "  John's  baptism  was  a 
separate  institution  from  that  enacted  after  our  Lord's  resur- 
rection?" He  explains  himself* — "  The  rite  performed  by 
John  is  rarely,  if  ever,  introduced  without  some  explanatory 
phrase  or  epidiet.  It  is  sometimes  denominated  the  baptism 
of  John ;  on  other  occasions,  baptism  in  water,  and  the  bap- 
tism of  repentance ;  but  it  is  never  expressed  in  the  absolute 
form  in  whi(Ji  the  mention  of  Christian  baptism  invariably 
occurs."! 

These  are  the  first  reasons.  We  have  considered  them 
carefully,  and  find  ourselves  utterly  incapable  of  perceiving 
their  applicability  or  force.  Let  all  the  facts  enumerated  be 
admitted,  and  what  then  ?  Do  diey  prove  any  thing  ?  Tliey 
only  show  that  John's  baptism  was  a  new  rite,  introduced  by 
him.  That  such  a  new  institution  should  be  designated  by 
certain  descriptive  phrases  and  epithets,  is  perfectly  natural. 
It  could  not  be  otherwise.  But  we  go  further  than  this. 
The  suggestion  places  in  our  hands  the  means  of  additional 
confirmation  of  our  own  conclusions,  and  enables  us  to  tm-n 
the  arguments  of  our  opponents  against  themselves.  The 
true  inquiry  is  this — In  speaking  of  baptism  in  water  subse- 
quent to  the  pentecost,  do  the  inspired  writers  ever  append 
to  it  any  "  explanatory  phrase  or  epithet,"  by  which  to  dis- 
tinguish it  from  John's  baptism  ?  Had  it  been  different,  they 
would  doubtless  have  so  represented  it ;  but  if  they  do,  I 
have  never  been  able  to  make  the  discovery.     The  natural 

*  I  quote  the  New  York  edition,  1S35. 
t  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  3G9. 


John's  daptism.  ^-^ 

inference,  therefore,  is,  not  that  Christian  baptism  is  "  a  disihiet 
msutuuon"  from  tl.at  of  Jolm,  bnt,  with  whatever  eircumstan- 
dal  differences,  essentially  the  same  baptism.     The  ar<n,ment 
rehed  upon  to  prove  it  a  different  baptism^  consequently, 
turns  actually  in  our  favor.     It  shows  tltat  if  the  baptism 
admmistered  after  the  ascension  of  our  Lord  had  been,  in  any 
imporlant  respect,  dissimilar  to  that  administered  previously 
some  distmctive  appellation  would  have  been  inlrodueed  i,,' 
conneciion  with  it  to  apprise  us  of  that  fact.   No  such  intima- 
tion IS  given.  We  cannot,  therefore,  avoid  the  conclusion,  tliat 
Jonn  s  baptism  and  Christian  baptism  are  identical,  and  that 
tliey  form  but  the  "one  baptism"  of  the  gospel  eeonomy.* 

A  second  reason  for  the  conclusion  that  "John's  baptism 
was  a  separate  institution  from  that  which  was  enacted  after 
our  Lord's  resuiieefion,"  and  that  as  a  consequence  the 
Lord  s  supper  was  anterior,  and  of  which,  when  tlie  first 
communicants'  partook,  they  had  never  received  Christian 
baptism,  is  thus  stated  by  the  distinguished  writer  already 
quoted-"  Joh.1  himself  contrast  his  baptism  with  a  superior 
one  which  he  directs  his  hearers  to  expect  at  the  hands  of 
the  Messiah."t 

_  Upon  tliis  matter  but  a  single  remark  is  necessary.  John 
It  IS  true,  does  contrast  his  own  with  a  superior  baptism' 
w.iicli  he  directs  his  hearers  to  expect  at  the  hands  of  tlie 
Alessiah.  But  who  is  so  ignorant  of  die  word  of  God  as  not 
to  know,  especially  as  John  himself  declares  it,  that  this  ban- 
teui  to  be  expected  from  Christ  was  not  of  water  but  of  the 
Holy  Ghost-"  I,  indeed,  baptize  you  with  water,  but  he  shall 
baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost."     From  this,  therefore, 

t  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  8G9. 

6 


62  TERIMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

Christian  baptism,  all  will  admit,  is  as  distinct  as  that  of  Jolin 
could  possibly  be.  Where  then  is  the  applical)ility  of  the 
argut7i*>nt  to  the  question  at  issue  ?  It  has  evidently  none 
wliatever. 

A  third  reason  for  the  conclusion  that  John's  was  not 
Christian  baptism,  is  expressed  in  these  terms — "  It  is  univer- 
sally admitted  that  Christian  baptism  has  been  invariably 
administered  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  and  that  circumstance  is 
essential  to  its  validity ;  while  it  is  evident,  from  the  solicitude 
with  which  our  Saviour  avoided  the  avowal  of  himself  as  the 
Messiah,  that,  during  his  public  ministry,  his  name  was  not 
publicly  employed  as  the  object  of  a  religious  rite. — The 
practice  of  baptizing  in  his  name  must  have  been  equivalent, 
at  least,  to  a  public  confession  of  his  being  the  Messiah. — 
'I'he  historian  informs  us  that,  while  John  was  baptizing, — 
all  men  were  musing  in  their  hearts  whether  he  were  tlie 
Christ,  or  not. — But  how  is  it  possible,  let  me  ask,  tliat  such 
a  question  should  arise  among  tlie  people  on  the  supposilion 
that  John  baptized  in  his  name  ?"* 

This  view  of  the  matter  is  radically  defective,  primarily, 
because  it  misstates  the  matters  of  fact.  Tliat  Christian 
baptism  was  invariably  administered,  verbally.,  in  the  name 
of  Jesus,  is  not  true.  Its  formulary  was — "  In  tlie  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Gliost."  Neither 
was  John's  baptism  administered,  verbally,  in  tlie  name  of 
Jesus  ;  but  in  the  name  of  Messias,  or  tlie  Christ — him  who 
was  to  come — o  f^x^fifvo^.  "  John— says  Paul — \'erily  bap- 
tized with  the  baptism  of  repentance,  saying  unto  the  people, 
tliat  they  should  believe  on  him  who  should  come  after  him— 
that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus."  These  distinctions  are  vital  to  a 
just  conception  of  the  argimient.  As  the  name  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  did  not  occur  in  the  form  of  words  used  by  Joiiii' 

*  Works,  vol.  i,  p.  370. 


JOHN  S    BAP  ILSM. 


in  the  rite  he  admiuiytered,  ample  room  is  furnished  for  the 
musings  and  inquiries  of  the  people,  whether  the  son  of 
Zecliariah  was  really  the  Christ,  the  expected  deliverer. 
Thus  also  is  fully  exposed  the  fallacy  of  tlie  objection 
founded  on  the  supposed  solicitude  of  the  Redeemer  to 
conceal,  for  the  present,  his  character  and  office.  These 
corrections  as  to  the  facts,  remove  instantly  every  difficulty. 
It  is  very  evident  that  John,  and  after  him  the  disciples  of 
the  Saviour,  might  have  baptized  the  whole  Jewish  nation 
in  the  name  of  Measias,  or  the  Christ,  and  had  they  not 
Aiformed  the  people,  at  the  same  time,  that  Jesus  was  the 
person  entitled  to  be  so  considered,  they  would  not,  in  a  single 
instance,  have  violated  the  caution  he  manifested  to  avoid  an 
indiscriminate  avo^val  of  his  claims  to  Messialiship. 

Having  noticed  one  so  material  an  error,  in  these  postu- 
lates of  our  opponents,  we  are  naturally  inclined  to  suspect 
the  presence  of  others.  To  ascertain  their  existence  let  us 
inquire  whether  i\lr.  Hall  does  not  lay  too  much  stress  on 
the  desire  of  Christ  for  concealment.  It  will  not  be  denied 
that,  during  his  personal  ministry,  our  Lord  commissioned, 
not  only  tlie  twelve  apostles,  but  also  the  seventy  disciples, 
to  perform,  and  that  too  in  his  name,  acts  calculated  to 
excite  at  least  as  much  attention,  and  to  give  fully  as  much 
publicity  to  whatever  the  action  revealed,  as  could  have 
attended  baptism  in  his  name.  They  were  authorized,  and 
instructed,  to  heal  the  sick,  to  cast  out  devils,  to  preach 
the  gospel,  and  to  perforai  miracles,  in  his  name.  They 
went  forth  in  obedience  to  the  order  of  their  appointment, 
and  having  fuffilled  their  mission,  they  returned  exulting  in 
their  success.  "Lord — exclaimed  they — even  the  devils 
are  subject  to  us  through  thy  7?«?ne."  A  public  act  of  tho 
nature  of  any  of  these,  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  was,  undoubtedly, 
equivalent  to  a  public  confession  that  he  was  the  Messiah. 


G4  TEUMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

These  facts  are  inconsistent  with  the  notion  that  he  eitlicr 
felt  or  exercised  all  the  caution  which  the  objection  now 
under  consideration  assumes.  The  secret  which  it  is  ima- 
gined he  was  so  solicitous  to  conceal,  was  as  fully  exposed  by 
these  exorcisms,  sermons,  and  miracles,  as  it  could  possibly 
have  been  by  baptizing  in  his  name.  Why,  then,  should 
he  command  the  former,  while  he  prohibited  the  latter? 
The  whole  matter,  therefore,  amounts  simply  to  this.  Our 
Lord  studiously  avoided  an  indiscriminate  verbal  declara- 
tion that  he  was  the  Christ,  because  he  did  not  wish  his 
claims  to  rest  on  this  ground.  But  he  never  shrunk  from 
such  an  avowal  of  his  Messiahship  as  might  be  inferred 
from  his  works.  To  these,  indeed,  he  constantly  appealed 
as  testimon)'  of  his  objects  and  character.  And  can  the 
required  proof  be  hence  gathered  that  .John's  was  not 
the  Christian  baptism  ?  No  more  than  it  can  be  estabhshed 
by  the  same  evidence  that  Peter  had  no  right  by  v/hich  he 
could  be  recognized,  as  the  aj)ostle  of  the  circumcision. 

A  fourth  reason  is  offered  which  it  is  imagined  invalidates 
the  Christian  character  of  John's  baptism.  It  is  the  admitted 
fact  that  the  events  baptism  was  designed  to  commemorate 
liad  not  yet  occurred — the  death,  burial,  resurrection,  and 
ascension,  of  Jesus  Christ.  He,  it  is  alleged,  directed  the 
minds  of  his  hearers  to  the  Messiah  to  come,  or  the  Christ 
who  is  coming.  And  as  an  event  cannot  be  commemorated 
until  after  it  has  transpired,  the  baptism,  which  is  defective 
in  this  respect,  cannot  be  Christian  baptism. 

Admit  all  this  to  be  true — which,  by  the  way,  could  not 
have  been  long  so,  for  John  soon  pointed  to  him  in  person, 
and  said  to  the  listening  multitude — "  Behold  the  hnmh  of 
God,  who  taketh  away  die  sin  of  the  world" — ^iDut  admit  it 
All  to  be  true,  and,  therefore,  that  his  baptism  could  not,  like 
tlie  Cliristian,  have  represented  events  which  had  yet  occur- 


John's  baptism.  65 

red,  or  trutlis  already  fully  delivered,  and  what  advantage 
would  our  opponents  tliereby  secure  to  their  cause  ?  We 
can  perceive  none  whatever.  The  Lord's  sapper  as  adminis- 
tered previous  to  the  death  of  Christ  is  in^'olved  in  precisely 
the  same  predicament.  If  this  kind  of  armament  estabhshes 
an  essential  difference  between  that  baptism  which  was  ad- 
ministered before,  and  that  wliich  was  administered  after,  the 
passion  of  our  Lord,  it  must,  by  the  same  process,  also  estab- 
lish a  difference  equally  essential  between  the  Lord's  supper 
before  and  after  the  same  event.  When  first  administered, 
the  transactions  it  was  designed  to  celebrate  had  not  taken 
place.  Both  the  ordinances  were  alike  prospective.  So, 
then,  if  the  baptism  was  not  Christian,  neither,  for  the  same 
reason,  was  the  eucharist  Christian.  If  we  must  seek  for  the 
genuine  Christian  institutions  in  the  administrations  subse- 
quent to  die  resurrection,  baptism  was  received  in  every  case 
before  the  Lord's  supper,  and  no  one  approached  the  latter 
who  had  not  submitted  to  the  former.  It  follows,  therefore, 
that  so  far  as  this  objection  is  concerned,  whatever  may  be 
considered  true  as  to  the  facts  involved,  our  conclusions  remain 
equally  firm  and  unshaken. 

A  fifth  reason  for  tlie  opinion  that  Jolm's  was  not  the 
Christian  baptism  is  staled  in  the  following  language — "  The 
spiritual  import  of  Christian  baptism,  as  asserted  by  Paul, 
transcends,  incomparably,  the  measure  of  religious  knowledge 
possessed  during  the  ministry  of  John.  '  Know  ye  not,'  is 
his  appeal  to  Christians,  '  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized 
into  Jesus  Christ  were  baptized  into  his  death  V  What  is 
the  meaning  of  the  words  '  baptized  into  his  death?''  What- 
ever else  it  may  comprehend,  it  unquestionably  means  the 
being  baptized  into  a  belief  of  his  death.  But  at  the  time  that 
John  was  fulfilling  his  course,  this  belief  was  so  far  from  pos- 
sessing the  minds  of  his  converts,  that  even  the  aposdes  were 
6* 


66  TEllMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

not  only  ignorant  of  that  event,  but  impatient  of  its  mention. 
*  As  many  of  us,'  says  Paul,  '  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ  were  baptized  into  his  death  ;'  which  is  surely  equi- 
valent to  affirming  that  whoever  were  not  baptized  into  his 
death,  were  not  baptized  into  Christ.  But  the  disciples  of 
John  were  not  baptized  into  the  belief  of  his  death.  There- 
fore, they  were  not  baptized  into  Christ."* 

This  argument,  to  perceive  its  want  of  conclusiveness, 
needs  but  a  moment's  examination.     Were  it  valid,  it  would, 
like  that  we  have  just  dismissed,  recoil  with  a  force  equally 
fatal  in  its  effects  against  the  Lord's  supper  as  administered 
before  the  death  of  Christ.     To  illustrate  tliis  remark  let  us 
briefly  test  its  powers.     To  say  that  the  apostles  comme- 
mor cited  an  event  before  it  occurred,  is  plainly  a  contradiction 
in  terms.     But  this  is  not  all.     The  spiritual  import  of  the 
Lord's  supper,  as  asserted  by  the  apostle  Paul,  exceeds  the 
measure  of  religious  apprehension  which  possessed  the  minds 
of  its  recipients  at  its  first  celebration.    "As  often,"  says  Paul, 
"  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show  the 
Lord's  death."     What  is  meant  by  the  phrase  ''ye  do  show 
the  Lord^s  death  .^"     Whatever  else  it  comprehends,  it  un- 
questionably includes  the  belief  of  his  death.     But  at  the  first 
celebration  of  the  sacred  supper  this  belief  was  so  far  from 
possessing  the  minds  even  of  the  apostles,  that  tliey  were  not 
only  ignorant  of  that  event,  but  impatient  of  its  mention. 
When  Jesus  was  about  to  be  taken  in  the  garden,  we  find 
Peter,  the  prince  of  their  number,  engaged  in  active  combat, 
sword  in  hand,  to  prevent  that  identical  tragedy.     "  As  often," 
says  Paul,  "  as  ye  eat  tins  bread  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do 
show  the  Lord's  death ;"  which  is  surely  equivalent  to  say- 
ing that  those  who  did  not  thus  show  the  liOrd's  death,  did 
iiot  p:u:t;ike  of  the  Lord's  supper.     But  the  apostles  at  ils  first 

♦Works,  vol.  i.  pp.  371,372. 


BArnS.M  BETORE  AND   AFTER  CHKISt's  DEATH,  67 

celebration  did  not  thus  show  their  behef  of  the  Lord's  death. 
Therefore,  they  did  not  partake  of  tlie  Lord's  supper.  Thus 
have  we  demonstrated  that  the  same  ar^nnent  tliat  proved 
that  the  baptism  of  John  and  of  the  disciples,  was  not  a  Chris- 
tian rite,  and,  therefore,  that  they  were  not  baptized,  estabUshes, 
with  the  same  decisiveness,  tliat  the  Lord's  supper  they  re- 
ceived was  not  a  Christian  ordinance,  and,  therefore,  that  they 
did  not,  until  after  the  resurrection  of  Messiah,  receive  any 
Christian  sacrament  whatever.  If  so,  baptism  still  maintains 
its  priority,  and  the  state  of  the  case  continues  unchanged. 

The  thought  will  readily  occur  to  the  mind  of  every  one 
"that  both  tlie  ordinances  in  question,  previous  to  the  death  of 
Christ  were  in  some  respects,  though  not  essentially,  different 
from  what  they  were  afterwards.  This  dissimilarity  con- 
sisted, not  in  their  spirit,  object,  or  manner,  but  simply  in  the 
amount  of  information  possessed  by  those  who  received  them. 
The  recipients  of  both  were  not  aware  of  their  full  import, 
because  the  events  they  recognized  were  still  in  the  future. 
But  their  knowledge  was  sufficient,  for  the  time  being,  for  all 
practical  purposes,  and,  therefore,  their  deficiency  in  this 
respect  was  not  such  as  to  vitiate  the  validity  of  the  divine 
appointments.  The  period  of  v/hich  we  speak  was  the  twi- 
light, the  early  dawn  of  the  Gospel  day.  The  shadows  of 
night  had  not  yet  departed.  A  dimness  and  mystery  en- 
shrouded every  event  intended  ultimately  to  illustrate  and 
endear  the  death  of  the  Son  of  Man.  Previously  the  church 
had  been  totally  oJDScured  and  mvisible.  Baptism  by  .John 
and  the  disciples  of  Christ,  began  to  make  ready  a  people 
prepared  for  the  Lord,  and  thus  to  ti'ace  the  great  outlines 
of  the  kingdom.  The  Lord's  supper  completed  the  sacred 
work.  The  Church,  when  it  was  received,  although  it  had 
not  assumed  all  its  destined  beautiful  proportions,  was  ren- 
dered fully  visible.     The  hnperfections  assignable  to   cue 


68  TERMS    or    COMMUNION. 

sacrament,  are  equally  characteristic  of  both.  The  recipients 
of  either  could  not  realize  the  amazing  transaction  to  which 
tliey  pointed.  This  was  a  glory  not  yet  revealed.  Shall 
we,  however,  on  this  account,  consign  ihem  to  the  darkness 
of  a  preceding  dispensation  ?  Rather  shall  we  not  recognize 
them,  although  in  the  incipient  stages  of  being,  as  the  im- 
pressive and  affecting  ordinances  the  full  signification  of 
wliich  the  clear  shining  of  the  Gospel  was  soon  gloriously 
to  discover.  Whatever  may  be  their  destiny,  the  two  sacra- 
ments, as  administered  before  the  death  of  Christ,  must  most 
evidently  stand  or  fall  together.  But  suppose  Ave  repudiate 
them,  what  Avill  be  the  consequence.  If  these,  as  they  existed 
during  the  personal  ministry  of  our  Lord,  are  taken  away, 
how,  as  we  have  no  others  to  which  we  may  refer,  in  teach- 
ing men,  as  the  commission  prescribes,  to  observe  all  things, 
whatsoever  he  had  commanded  them,  will  any  one  be  able 
to  discover,  and  establish,  a  single  duty  peculiar  to  the  fel- 
lowship of  the  church  of  Christ  ? 

A  sixth  objection  is  introduced.  "  As  the  ministry  of 
John,"  says  Mr.  Hall,  "commenced  previously  to  that  of 
the  Messiah,  which  succeeded  his  baptism,  no  rite  celebrated 
at  that  time,  is  entitled  to  a  place  among  Christian  sacra- 
ments, since  they  did  not  commence  \\i\k  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation, nor  issue  from  the  authority  of  Christ,  as  head  of 
the  church."* 

In  this  short  sentence  we  have  two  distinct  reasons  for 
dissent.  It  is  proper  for  us  to  notice  them  separately.  The 
former  is,  that  the  jninistry  of  John  did  not  commence  with 
the  Gospel  dispensation ;  and  the  latter  is,  that  John's  bap- 
tism did  not  proceed  from  the  authority  of  Christ  as  head  of 
the  church.  Upon  both  we  join  issue,  and  plead  that  nei* 
tlier  is  entitled  to  the  consideration  of  a  matter  of  fact. 

*  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  372. 


John's  administration  not  christian.  GO 

In  relation  to  the  former,  is  it  true,  allow  me  to  ask,  that 
tlie  ministry  of  John  did  not  commence  with  the  Gospel 
dispensation  ?  I  know  it  is  insisted,*  that  this  is  impossi- 
ble, for  the  reason  that — "  During  our  Lord's  residence  on 
earth,  until  his  resurrection,  the  kingdom  of  God  is  uniformly 
represented  as  future,  though  near  at  hand."  This,  also,  is 
a  mistake,  as  will  be  clearly  seen,  the  moment  we  consult 
tlie  Evangelists  on  the  subject.  "  If  I  cast  out  devils," 
said  our  Lord  on  one  occasion,  and  that  too,  long  before  his 
resurrection,  "  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  then  the  kingdom  of 
God  IS  COME  imto  you.''''  And  when  the  Pharisees  in- 
quired of  him  when  the  kingdom  of  God  should  come,  he 
replied  in  these  terms  :  "  The  kingdom  of  God  cometh  not 
with  observation.  Neither  shall  men  say,  lo  here  !  or  lo 
there !  for,  behold,  the  kingdom  of  God  is  ivithin  you,^^ 
Nor  is  it  possible  to  evade  the  force  of  the  arguments  thus 
furnished  by  distinguishing  between  our  Lord's  personal 
ministry,  and  the  ministry  of  John ;  smce  Mark  expressly 
assures  us  that  his  coming  was  "  In  the  beginning  of  the 
Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  God."t 

*  Ut  supra. 

t  The  commencement  of  the  narrative  of  INIark  i.  l,is  thus  translated 
by  Michaelis  in  his  German  New  Testament: — "  The  beginning  of  the 
Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  was  made  by  John,  who  baptized 
in  the  wilderness,  and  preached  the  baptism  of  repentance  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins  ;  as  it  is  written,  &c."  He  adds  : — "  If  the  first  sen- 
tence— The  beginning  of  the  Gospel  of,  &c.  was" — as  some  contend- 
"  used  as  a  title  only  to  the  rest  of  the  book,  then  it  would  have  begun 
with  (1)5  ysyfartrai,  which  would  be  an  unsuitable  commence  to  any 
narrative."  In  the  correctness  of  this  exposition  the  following  writers, 
as  Biblical  critics  and  scholars,  were  obliged  to  concur  :  Bishop  Marsh 
— Notes  to  Michaelis,  vol.  iii.  part  2,  p.  5.  Archbishop  Newcome — 
Notes  to  the  Harmony  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  1.  Lightfoot — ^\Vorlis, 
fol.  ed.  1684,  vol.  ii.  p.  331.  Doddridge — Family  Expositor,  vol.  i.  p. 
93,  8vo,  1810.  Markland — apud  Elsley  in  loc.  Whitby — Comm.  in  loc. 
Grotius — Annotationes  in  V.  et  N.  T.  in  Compendium  deducliE  a  Sam. 


70  TERMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

That  llie  ministry  of  John  was  within  Uie  Gospel  dispen- 
sation is  plainly  declared  by  Jesus  Christ  himself,  in  sujh 
terms  as  to  place  the  question  beyond  dispute.  "  From  thrf 
days  of  John  the  Baptist  until  now,"  said  he,  speaking  v/f 
his  precursor  during  his  imprisonment,  "  the  kingdom  c: 
heaven  suffereth  violence."  He  doubtless  had  allusion  iu 
this  remark  to  the  eagerness  with  which  the  people  receiveu 
tlie  doctrine,  and  pressed  to  join  themselves  to  the  disciples 
of  John.  But  if  his  ministry  had  not  been  within,  or  as  it 
really  was,  the  commencement  of  "  the  kingdom  of  heaveii," 
in  the  New  Testament  sense  of  that  phrase,  that  is  the  Gos- 
pel, or  Christian  dispensation,  how  could  this  kingdom,  this 
dispensation,  this  Gospel,  which  did  not  visibly  exist,  have 
been  said  to  suffer  violence  ?  Evidently  it  could  not.  The 
figurative  descriptions  of  the  Gospel  kingdom  are  also  equally 
as  much  at  war  with  the  opinions  of  our  opponents,  as  the 
plain  representations  just  noticed.  By  the  Great  Teacher 
himself  the  kingdom,  of  God  is  compared  to  ^^  leaven  hid  iu 
three  measures  of 'meal,"  which  commences,  and  by  slow, 
and,  at  first,  almost  imperceptible  degrees,  performs  its  work 
of  fermentation  until  the  whole  mass  is  leavened.  This 
accords  with  the  facts  as  they  are  understood  by  us.  Com- 
mencing with  the  preaching  of  John,  and  contiiuiing  through 
the  personal  ministry  of  the  Saviour,  the  Gospel  gradually 
insinuated  itself  into  the  minds  of  the  people,  until  ultimately 
the  most  glorious  results  were  achieved.  It  is  also  compared 
to  "a  grain  of  mustard  seed."  At  first  the  Gospel  grew  in 
obscurity,  and  put  forth  its  shoots  imperceptibly  to  those 
who  were  expecting  some  sudden  and  splendid  display  of  the 

Moody,  4to  1727.  Kuinoel — ■Comment,  in  lib.  N.  T.  liistoricos,  vol.  ii. 
p,  11,  and  many  others,  who  consider  the  passage  but  the  first  phrase 
of  a  long  sentence,  and,  consequently,  not  to  be  separated  from  the 
context.     Vide  Towuacnd  in  loco. 


JOHNS  ADMINISTRATION  NOT  CHRISTIAN.  71 

power  of  Messiah.  On  the  liypolhesis  that  the  kingdom  of 
God,  or  tlie  Gospel  of  Jesus  ('hrist,  commenced,  agreeahly 
to  t]ie  declaration  of  Mark,  with  the  ministry  of  John,  there 
is  a  fitness  in  these  resemblances — a  thorough  kcepiii<r  be- 
tween the  comparisons  and  the  reality.  While,  on  the  con- 
trary, if  we  could  suppose,  with  Mr.  Hall,  that  the  Cliristian 
dispensation  commenced  v/ith  the  splendors  of  Pentecost,  it 
must  have  burst  upon  the  world,  in  a  moment,  with  over- 
wlielming  majesty.  Nothing-  in  such  a  case  would  have  been 
less  appropriate  to  illustrate  it  than  hidden  leaven  working 
its  elfoct  in  secret,  and  the  unobserved  germination  of  the 
smallest  of  seeds. 

To  reply  to  us  that  during  our  Lord's  personal  ministry 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  always  represented  as  future,  is  to 
assume  what,  as  we  have  already  seen,  is  not  ti'ue.  Tliat 
it  is  occasionidlij  so  represented  is  admitted.  But  this  will 
not  avail  to  turn  aside  our  argument.  It  was  in  part  future, 
because  not  yet  fully  revealed.  But  does  it,  therefore, 
follow  that  its  commencement  was  in  the  future?  Surely 
not.  'I'o  affirm  this  for  such  reasons,  as  our  opponents  do, 
is  as  inconclusive  as  it  would  be  to  contend  that  we  liave  not 
to  this  day  witnessed  its  approach,  because  in  our  daily 
aspirations  to  God  we  are  instructed  to  say — "  Thy  kingdom 
come."  As  the  first  rays  of  light  which  shoot  forth  from 
the  east,  and  struggle  v/ith  surrounding  darkness,  contain  all 
the  incipient  elements  of  the  perfect  day,  so  the  glimmering 
of  the  gospel  which  characterized  the  ministry  of  John,  wers 
the  same  elements  which  continued  to  increase  in  bright- 
ness during  the  ministry  of  our  Lord,  and  contained  all  die 
essential  properties  which  constituted  the  blazing  splendor 
of  the  ministiy  of  the  Spirit.  So  far,  therefore,  is  it  fioui 
being  true,  that  the  ministry  of  John  did  not  commence  with 
tlio  Gospel  dispensation,  it  is  rendered  certain  beyond  a 


72  TERMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

doubt,  that  it  constituted  of  it  a  most  important  and  interest- 
ing part — its  auspicious  commencement,  tiie  springing  dawn 
of  its  visible  existence. 

The  latter  objection  of  the  two  now  under  consideration 
is  that  "  John's  baptism  did  not  issue  from  the  authority  of 
Christ  as  head  of  the  church."  In  reply,  I  remark,  that  the 
proposition,  although  it  carries  with  it  a  semblance  of  ti-uth, 
cannot  be  supported.  Tliat  John  received  his  commission 
from  Jesus,  in  person,  no  one  pretends.  But  if  Christ  is 
God,  one  with  the  Father,  and  inseparable  from  the  Triune 
Deity,  and  from  whom,  as  Jehovah,  John  certainly  did 
receive  his  appointment,  and  by  whom  he  was  clothed  with 
authority,  how  can  it  be  said  that  he  did  not  receive  his 
commission  from  Christ  as  head  of  the  church  ?  It  cannot, 
without  either  manifesting  an  obvious  disposition  to  sophis- 
ticate by  the  aid  of  unmeaning  distinctions,  or  palpably 
derogating  from  the  character  of  Jesus  Christ  as  the  God  of 
his  people.  And  suppose  it  could,  without  an  indignity  to 
the  Messiah,  be  proved  that  John  was  sent  by  the  Fatlier, 
independent  of  any  concurrence  of  the  Son,  would  this  prove 
that  his  baptism  was  not  a  Christian  institution  ?  Apply 
the  same  argument  in  other  cases,  and  it  is,  in  any,  equally 
appropriate,  and  the  consequences  would  be  most  alarming. 
John's  baptism,  it  is  true,  would,  on  this  principle,  be 
unchristianized,  but  the  Gospel  he  preached  would  share  the 
same  fate.  Nor  could  the  desolating  process  of  it  be  aiTested 
here.  The  baptism  of  our  Lord  himself,  the  miracles  which 
he  wrought,  and  the  Gospel  vv^hich  he  preached,  would  all  be 
found  in  the  same  unchristianized  category,  because  he  too 
as  well  as  John  received  his  commission  from  the  Father. 
Christ  was  not  self-commissioned — self-sent— self-authorized. 
Whence,  then,  did  he  receive  his  commission?  By  whom 
was  he  sent?     By  what  authority  did  he  preacJi,  and  act? 


John's  baptism.  73 

1  abhor  the  idea  of  detracting  in  any  way,  even  by  implica- 
tion, from  the  perfect,  the  essential  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ. 
We  cannot  be  suspected  of  doing  so  if  we  maintain  that,  as 
the  Messiah,  liis  authority  was  received  from  the  same 
source,  and  was  of  the  same  character,  with  that  whi("h 
appointed  John  to  the  office  and  duties  which  he  fulfilled  in 
the  Christian  kingdom. 

Let  us  still  further  illustrate  this  topic.  The  chief  priests 
and  elders,  as  he  was  teaching  in  the  temple,  interrogated 
our  Lord  in  this  language,  "  By  what  authority  doest  thou 
these  things  ?  And  who  gave  thee  this  authority  ?"  Jesus 
answered  them — "  I  will  ask  you  one  thing,  which,  if  you 
tell  me,  I,  also,  will  tell  you  by  what  authority  I  do  these 
things — The  baptism  of  John — whence  was  it?"  'I'his 
question  evidently  implies  that  the  answer  to  his  inquiry 
would  be  an  api)ropriate  response  to  that  which  they  had 
propounded  to  him.  If  we  need  any  additional  testimony 
to  place  the  correctness  of  our  conclusions  on  this  subject 
beyond  a  doubt,  we  have  only  to  refer  to  our  Lord's  dis- 
courses themselves.  "  I  am  come,"  said  he,  "  in  my  Father's 
name,  and  ye  receive  me  not — I  do  nothing  of  myself;  but 
as  my  Father  hath  taught  me  I  speak  these  things— -The 
works  that  I  do  in  my  Father's  name,  they  bear  witness  of 
me — As  my  Father  hath  sent  me  so  send  I  you."  On  the 
presumption  that  it  is  essential  to  a  Christian  ordinance  that 
it  should  be  instituted  by  Christ  in  person,  in  distinction 
from  the  Father,  the  works  Jesus  performed,  as  they  con- 
fessedly have  not  that  sanction,  are  at  once  divested  of  their 
Christian  character.  The  Gospel  which  he  preached  was 
not,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Christian  doctrine ;  the  miracles 
he  wrought  were  not  Christian  miracles;  the  commands 
which  he  issued  were  not  Christian  commands  !  Yet  that 
the  Gospel  which  our  Saviour  preaclied  was  the  Christian 

7 


74  TERMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

(lof^trine  ;  that  tlie  miracles  which  he  psrformoJ  were  Chris- 
tian miracles  ;  and  that  the  commands  which  he  issued  luere 
Christian  commands ;  who  will,  for  a  moment,  pretend  to 
deny?  Why,  then,  deny  that  John's  baptism  was  the 
Christian  baptism,  merely  because  it  is  imagined  he  received 
his  commission,  not  from  Jesus  in  person,  but  from  the 
Father,  who  is  one  and  the  same  with  Christ !  Nothing 
can  be  more  supremely  preposterous. 

But  numerous  instances  of  baptism,  other  than  those 
administered  by  John,  occurred  before  the  resuiTection  of 
Messiah;  They  were  performed  by  the  disciples — for  Jesus, 
be  it  recollected,  made  and  baptized  more  converts  than  John. 
These  baptisms  must  have  emanated  from  the  personal 
authority  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  they  all  occurred,  undeniably, 
anterior  to  the  institution  of  the  sacred  supper.  The  rite 
administered  by  the  twelve,  and  by  the  seventy,  under  the 
direction  of  the  gi-eat  head  of  the  church,  was  either  John's 
baptism,  or  it  was  Christian  baptism.  If  it  was  not  John's, 
then  it  was  certainly  the  Christian  baptism  ;  if  it  was  John's 
baptism,  then  John's  baptism  issued  from  the  personal 
authority  of  Christ.  In  either  case  Christian  baptism  was 
administered  before  the  death  of  Christ,  was  an  institution 
prior  to  the  eucharist,  and  had  been  received  by  all  who  were 
admitted  to  the  Lord's  supper. 

This  argument  need  not,  I  think,  be  pursued  further. 
Enough  has  been  said  to  show  that  the  proposition,  "  that 
John's  baptism  was  a  separate  institution  from  that  which 
was  enacted  after  our  Lord's  resurrection,  that  the  Lord's 
supper  was  anterior  to  baptism,  and  that  the  original  com- 
jnunicants  consisted  entirely  of  such  as  had  not  received  that 
ordinance,"  is  an  error,  and  cannot  lie  supported.  'J'liis  we 
have  demonstrated  by  examining  and  illustrating  the  fallacy 
of  the  reasoning  by  which  the  notion  in  question  is  attempted 


John's  baptisai.  75 

to  be  maintained.  There  are  .also,  on  tlie  other  hand,  proofs, 
most  ample  and  conclusive,  that  John's  was  in  every  essen- 
tial particular  the  Christian  baptism.  To  these  we  can,  at 
present,  but  very  briefly  allude.  John's  baptism,  and  that 
of  the  disciples,  were  administered  widiin  the  period  of  the 
Christian  dispensation,  by  the  authority  of  Christ,  in  the 
nanre  of  Christ,  in  the  same  mode,  and  to  the  same  subject, 
with  that  of  Christ,  and  no  person  who  had  recei^-ed  it,  not- 
withstanding the  imperative  command  to  give  Christian 
baptism  to  every  believer,  ever  was,  afterwards,  rebaptized, 
either  at  Pentecost,  or  subsequendy.  In  the  absence  of  all 
proof  to  the  conti-ary,  and  w^e  have  seen  that  no  counter 
testimony  can  be  produced,  if  these  facts  do  not  constitute 
John's  baptism  the  Christian  baptism,  we  have  not  now^  and 
never  have  had,  any  ordinance  that  deserves  the  name,  or  that 
can  claim  to  be  regarded  as  Christian  baptism.  So  palpably 
evident,  indeed,  is  this  truth,  that  on  another  occasion,*  Mr. 
Hall  himself  acknowdedges,  perhaps  by  accident,  when  under 
the  influence  of  his  better  judgment,  that  our  conclusions  are 
just  and  legitimate.  "The  baptisms,"  said  he,  "celebrated 
by  Christ's  disciples,  during  his  personal  ministry,  in  no 
respect,  differed  from  John's  either  in  the  action  itself,  or  in 
the  import,  but  were  merely  a  joint  execution  of  the  same 
work."  We  have  abeady  seen  that  the  baptisms  of  the 
disciples  did  unquestionably  emanate  from  "  the  authority  of 
Christ  as  the  head  of  the  church."  These  baptisms,  there- 
fore, all  belong  to  the  Christian  dispensation ;  and,  having 
been  performed  in  obedience  to  the  Christian  legislator,  were 
undeniably  Christian  baptisms.  But  it  is  aflirmed  that 
"  these  baptisms,  in  no  respect,  difl^er  from  John's."  Con- 
seqviendy,  John's  baptism  and  Christian  baptism  are  identi- 
cally the  same  baptism.     This  fact  being  now  estabhshed, 

*  Terms  of  Com.  Amer.  ed.  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  362. 


76  TERMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

one  of  the  most  formidable  objections  against  our  doctrine  is 
overthrown,  and  forever  destroyed,  and  it  remains  true  that 
repentance  towards  God,  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and 
baptism,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
tlie  Holy  Ghost,  are  invariably  and  indispensably,  prelimina- 
ries to  sacramental  communion. 


CHAPTER  V. 

RILPLY  TO  THE  ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  OTJR  DOCTRINE  ON 
SACRAMENTAL  COMMUNION  FOUNDED  ON  THE  INSPIRED 
PRINCIPLES    OF    CHRISTIAN    TOLERATION. 

The  proposition  examined,  that  a  change  of  circumstances  justifies  a 
change  of  practice  with  regard  to  the  ordinances — Inspired  canons 
of  Christian  toleration  recited — They  require  forbearance  with 
things  indifferent,  but  do  not  permit  us  to  extend  our  fellowship  to 
errors  which  are  subversive  of  the  divine  law. 

The  revealed  principles  which  regulate  sacramental  com- 
munion, as  explained  and  estabUshed  by  us,  cannot,  it  is 
alleged,  however  strongly  they  may  appear  to  be  supported 
by  the  word  of  God,  be  always  obligatory,  because  they  are 
modified,  to  meet  the  different  circumstances  under  which  we 
may,  at  any  time,  be  placed,  by  the  inspired  canons  of 
Christian  toleration.  The  general  views  illustrative  of  this 
hypothesis  are  set  forth  in  the  following  terms :  "  The 
apostles,  it  is  acknowledged,"  says  Mr.  Hall,  "admitted 
none  to  the  Lord's  supper  but  such  as  were  previously  bap- 
tized ;  but  under  what  circumstances  did  they  maintain  that 
course?"*  Circumstances  have  now  changed,  and  it  is 
insisted  our  practice  ought  also  to  change !  When  the 
apostles  required  baptism  as  one  of  the  terms  of  communion, 
we  are  told,  "  a  mistake  respecting  the  will  of  the  supreme 
Legislator  on  the  subject  was  impossible."  At  present, 
however,  than  such  mistakes  nothing  is  more  common,  or 
innocent ;  they  have  even  become  an  "  infirmity."     "  Con- 

*  Works,  vol.  ii.  pp.  213,  214. 


/S  TERMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

vince  our  Pedobaptist  brethren,"  remarks  this  eloquent  writer, 
"  thai  it  is  their  duty  to  be  baptized  in  tlie  metliod  wliich  we 
approve,  and  they  stand  ready,  many  of  them  at  least,  we 
cannot  doubt,  stand  ready  to  perfonn  it.  Some  of  them"— 
who  fail  to  be  convinced,  are  "  illustrious  examples  of  piety."* 
That  they  are  not  baptizeil  is  rather  their  infirmity  than  their 
fault !  "  Shall  we  separate  ourselves  from  the  best  of  men" 
because  of  such  mistakes?  We  might,  perhaps,  inquire, 
why  Infinite  Wisdom  did  not  foresee  this  state  of  things,  and 
provide  for  it  by  refraining  to  place  baptism  in  the  attitude  of 
a  qualification  requisite  to  prepare  us  for  an  approach  to  the 
sacred  table  ?  It  is  replied,  baptism  was  essential  to  com- 
munion in  the  apostles'  days,  not  because  there  was  or  is 
"any  possible  connection  between  the  two  ordinances,"  but 
because  baptism  was  then  essential  to  salvation.  Now  it 
has  ceased  to  be  so.  Only  regeneration  is  essenfial  to  salva- 
tion ;  and  that  alone  is  necessary  to  communion  which  is 
required  to  fit  us  for  salvation.  "  I  assert,  that  bapfism,  in 
the  apostolic  age,  loas  essential  to  salvafion."t  But  in  these 
degenerate  "latter  days,  it  is  a  mere  rite,"J  the  reception  or 
rejection  of  which  is  of  so  little  moment  that  it  cannot,  in  any 
way,  affect  even  church  fellowship,  or  be  of  the  least  conse- 
quence as  respects  our  title  to  all  the  privileges  and  innnu- 
nities  of  the  kingdom  of  Messiah !  "This  reasoning,"  it  is 
added,  "  proceeds  not  on  the  principles  of  the  innocence  of 
error  in  general,  or  of  infant  sprinkling  in  particular  ;"§  but,|| 
"  We  may  with  great  propriety  allege  the  spirit  of  the  times, 
the  genius  of  the  age,"  as  a  reason  for  overleaping  all  tlie 
ancient  barriers. 

•  Works,  vol.  ii.  pp.  214,  215. 

t  Reply  to  Kinghorn,  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  416. 

t  Ut  Supra,  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  417. 

%  Vol.  i.  p.  338.  II  Vol.  ii.  pp.  229,  230. 


CHRISTIAN    TOLERATION.  79 

Sucli  are  the  reasons  of  Mr.  Hall  for  free  communion,  and 
that,  in  these  quotations  I  have  not  misrepresented  him,  all 
will  at  once  perceive,  who  have  ever  carefully  examined  his 
works.  Can  it  be  necessary,  before  our  enlightened  churches 
and  friends,  seriously  to  argue  such  monstrous  propositions  ? 
Are  the  practice  and  order  of  the  apostles,  established  as  they 
are  upon  unchanging  principles,  no  longer  examples  for  us  to 
follow  !  Are  we  so  difTerendy  associated  from  the  primitive 
disciples  that  we  must  not  be  governed  by  the  laws  which 
directed  their  obedience,  but  resort  to  circumstances,  the  spirit 
of  the  times,  the  genius  of  the  age,  as  more  proper,  and  safer 
rules  of  action  !  The  sprmkhng  of  an  infant  by  mistake^  and 
tlie  refusal  to  be  baptized.,  commonly  its  consequence, — > 
acts  which,  in  the  aposdes'  days,  would  have  damned  the 
perpetrator — are  now  innocent  and  familiar  things,  absolutely 
sanctioned  by  Jehovah ;  or  at  the  worst,  regarded  only  as 
mirstakes,  perhaps  wjirmitles,  because  not  particularly 
averse  to  "  the  spirit  of  the  times,  the  genius  of  the  age  T* 
All  is  defended  as  at  least  harmless,  and  that  too,  not  on  the 
ground  of  "  the  innocence  of  error  in  general,  or  of  infant 
sprinkling  in  particular,"  but  of  some  imagined  mysterious 
"  canons  of  Christian  toleration  !"  To  such  latitudinarianism 
as  this — to  such  self-contradictions — what  can  we  say  ?  Had 
they  been  proposed  by  an  ordinary  man,  or  were  they  divest- 
ed of  their  sparkling  beauty  of  manner,  brilliancy  of  metaphor, 
and  gloAving  elegance  of  style,  they  would  at  once  be  con- 
demned by  every  man  of  ordinary  judgment,  as  a  jumble  of 
nonsense,  indicative  alike  of  weakness  and  insincerity. 

Such  are  the  general  principles  of  open  communion.  The 
specific  and  particular  arguments  are  more  tangible.  The 
inspired  laws  of  Christian  toleration,  which,  it  is  alleged, 
clearly  include  the  subject  of  communion,  and  which  are  vio- 
lated by  excluding  from  the  Lord's  table  pious  unbaptized 


80  TERMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

Pedobaptists,  are  stated  by  Mr.  Hall  thus — "  We  are  ex- 
pressly commanded  to  tolerate  in  tlie  cliurcli  those  diversities 
of  opinion  which  are  not  inconsistent  with  salvation.  We 
learn  from  the  New  Testament,  that  a  diversity  of  views 
subsisted  in  the  times  of  the  apostles,  betwixt  the  Jew^ish 
and  Gentile  converts  especially,  the  former  retaining  an  at- 
tachment to  the  ancient  law,  and  conceiving  the  most  essential 
parts  of  it  to  be  in  force,  the  latter  from  correcter  views  re- 
jecting it  altogether.  Some  declined  the  use  of  certain  kinds 
of  meat  forl^idden  by  Moses,  which  others  partook  of  without 
scruple.  '  One  man  esteemed  one  day  above  another,'  con- 
scientiously observing  the  principal  Jewish  solemnities ; 
*  another  esteemed  every  day  alike.'  Instead  of  attempting 
to  silence  these  differences,  by  interposing  his  authority,  St. 
Paul  enjoins  mutual  toleration.  '  Him  that  is  weak  in  the 
faith  receive  ye,  not  to  doubtful  disputations.  For  one  be- 
lieveth  that  he  may  eat  all  things,  another,  who  is  weak, 
eateth  herbs.  Let  not  him  that  eateth  despise  him  that  eateth 
not ;  and  let  not  him  that  eateth  not,  judge  him  that  eateth ; 
for  God  hath  received  him.  Who  art  thou  that  judgest  an- 
other man's  servant  ?  Unto  his  -own  master  he  standeth  or 
falleth.  Yea,  he  shall  be  holden  up;  for  God  is  able  to 
make  him  stand.  One  man  esteemeth  one  day  above  another. 
Another  esteemeth  every  day  alike.  Let  every  man  be  fully 
persuaded  in  his  own  mind.'  Rom.  xiv.  1 — 5.  To  the  same 
purpose  are  the  following  injunctions  in  the  next  chapter : 
'  We,  then,  that  are  strong,  ought  to  bear  tlie  infirmities  of 
the  weak,  and  not  to  please  ourselves.  Now  the  God  of 
peace  and  consolation  gi-ant  you  to  be  like  minded,  one  to- 
wards another,  as  Christ  also  hath  received  us  to  the  glory 
of  God.'  Rom.  xv.  1,  5,  7.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  these 
passages  contain  an  apostolic  canon  for  the  regulation  of  the 
conduct  of  such  Christians  as  ag'ree  in  fundamentals,  while 


CHRISTIAN    TOLERATION.  81 

Uiey  diiTer  on  points  of  subordinate  importance  ;  and  by  tliia 
canon  they  are  commanded  to  exercise  a  reciprocal  toleration 
and  indulgence,  and  on  no  account  to  proceed  to  an  open  rup- 
ture. In  order  to  determine  how  far  these  apostolic  injunc- 
tions oblige  us  to  tolerate  the  supposed  eiTor  of  our  Pedobaptist 
brethren,  we  have  merely  to  consider  whether  it  excludes 
them  from  being  of  the  number  of  those  whom  Christ  has 
received  to  the  glory  of  the  Father."*  In  another  place  he 
adds  :  "  Neither  of  the  ancient  nor  of  the  modern  en'or,  is  it 
pretended  that  they  are  fondamental,  or  that  they  endanger  the 
salvation  of  those  who  hold  tliem.  Thus  far  they  stand  on 
the  same  footing,  and  the  presumption  is  tliat  they  ought  to  be 
treated  in  the  same  maimer." 

This  argrnnent  is  ingenious  in  its  construction.  I  doubt 
not  ^Ir.  Hall  himself  w^as  deceived  by  it.  But  it  is  sophistical 
in  its  premises,  erroneous  in  its  form,  deceptive  in  its  language, 
inapplicable  in  its  matter,  and  therefore  mconclusive,  and  with- 
out effect  on  the  subject  in  controversy.  It  is  sophistical  in 
its  premises,  because  the  argument  is  made  to  stand  partly  on 
pounds  admitted  to  be  tiiie,  and  partly  on  grounds  notoriously 
untenable  and  inadmissil^le.  It  is  eiToneous  in  its  form,  because 
the  reasoning  founded  upon  the  apostolic  instructions  in  regard 
to  diversities  of  opinion  and  practice  in  the  primitive  churches 
respecting  old  Jewish  rites  and  things  indiflerent,  neither  com- 
manded nor  prohibited  in  the  Gospel,  is  made  to  apply  to 
baptism,  an  ordinance  enjoined  by  divine  law,  and  regulated 
by  an  express  statute  of  Messiah.  It  is  deceptive  in  its  lan- 
guage. Whether  the  "  supposed  errors"  are  "  fundamental 
to  salvation,"  is  the  form  employed,  when  the  only  question 
at  issue  is,  whether  they  are  subversive  of  any  divine  law. 
No  other  reasons  tlian  these  need  be  given  for  the  assumption 

*  Works,  vol.  i.  pp.  324,  325,  et  seq. 


82  TERMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

that  it  is  in-applicable  in  its  matter,  inconclusive,  and  without 
eftect  on  the  subject  in  controversy. 

I  will  not,  however,  despatch  this  topic  quite  so  summarily. 
More  extended  remarks  are  to  the  sincere  inquirer  after  truth 
desirable  with  reference  to  three  particulars — our  doctrine 
regarding  Christian  toleration  in  the  aggregate ;  the  violence 
inflicted  on  its  prhiciples  in  forcing  their  application  to  free 
communion ;  and  a  correct  exposition  of  inspired  teaching 
on  the  subject. 

The  duty,  in  the  first  place,  of  maintaining  Christian  tole- 
ration in  the  broadest  and  most  liberal  sense  of  the  legitimate 
use  of  that  term,  we  not  only  admit,  but  also  strongly  incul- 
cate, and  resolutely  defend.  The  word  of  God  teaches  it; 
the  spirit  of  the  Gospel  illustrates  it ;  and  I  should  feel  my- 
self unworthy  the  name  of  Christian  if  I  did  not  reverendy 
and  gi'atefnlly  appreciate  it.  For  the  generous,  persevering, 
profound,  and  noble  ad^^ocacy,  by  her  sons,  of  Christian 
toleration,  more  than  for  any  other  distinction,  has  our  vene- 
rable and  beloved  church  been  rendered  illustrious  through 
fifteen  centuries.  And  shall  we  now  cliange  this  honor  into 
a  weakness  and  make  it  a  positive  defect  ?  In  our  enthusiasm 
to  maintain  our  reputation  as  the  friends  of  religious  liberty 
shall  we  lose  our  discrimination,  and  cease  to  understand,  or 
apply,  the  laws  of  Jesus  Christ.  "All  men,"  says  a  recent 
distinguished  writer,  v/ith  whom  we  most  heartily  and  fully 
concur,  "  are  bound  Id}'  the  laws  of  God,  and  are  responsible 
to  him."  Let  that  fact  be  distinctly  recollected.  "  From  this 
primary  and  supreme  obligation  the  conscience  cannot  be  freed. 
All  human  authority  is  subordinate  to  that  which  is  divine, 
and  is  submitted  to  with  the  reservation  of  allegiance  to  the 
Universal  Sovereign.  That  allegiance  no  man  has  a  right  to 
forego.  God  may  prescribe,  as  supreme  Ruler,  the  ti-uths 
necessary  to  belief,  and  the  modes  of  worship  acceptable  to 


CHRISTIAN    TOLERATION.  83 

hun,  and,  if  he  phases,  enforce  conformity  b}'"  t.5mporal,  as 
well  as  eternal  penalties.  This  he  did  once  in  the  Hebrew 
commonwealth.  He  there  authorized  the  civil  magistrate  to 
act  in  his  name ;  and  armed  him  with  coercive  power  to 
maintain  the  revealed  national  religion.  But  this  system  was 
changed  on  the  mtroduction  of  Christianity.  The  Son  of 
God  declined  totally  the  use  of  the  civil  or  coercive  power  in 
the  propagation  of  the  Gospel,"  to  maintain  its  doctrines,  or 
obedience  to  its  commandments.  "  The  obligation  to  love 
God,  and  obey  the  Gospel,  binds  the  conscience  of  every 
man  under  this  new  dispensation  as  before ;  but  lie  is  now 
made  responsible,  not  to  the  magistrate,  but  to  God.  E^ery 
thing  is  referred  to  the  individual's  own  conscience,  quickened 
by  the  view  of  the  divine  tribunal.  His  fellow  men  have  no 
right  to  interfere.  All  human  laws,  therefore,  whicli  either 
prescribe  or  prohibit  certain  doctiines  or  rites,  not  inconsistent 
with  the  ci\'il  peace,  are  manifestly  unauthorized  hj-  the  Bible, 
and  are  obviously  unjust.  They  invade  the  di\ine  prero- 
gative. They  trespass  on  the  most  sacred  right  of  the  human 
soul,  the  right  of  seeking  and  serving  God  in  the  manner  we 
are  persuaded  he  requires.  They  are,  therefore,  null  and 
void,  and  no  man  is  bound  to  obey  them."* 

These  principles,  every  particular  of  which,  were  this  the 
place,  I  would  sustain  by  the  amplest  testimony  from  the 
word  of  God,  are  applicable  to  the  church.  She  is  now  the 
only  lawful  theocracy  existing.  Such  a  form  of  national 
government  cannot,  under  the  Gospel,  take  place.  Those 
who  enter  the  church  must  come  as  the  laws  of  God  pre- 
scribe, and  to  no  other  can  obedience  be  required.  In  her 
fellowsliip  these,  and  no  other,  are  to  be  enforced.  Should 
any  man  refuse  compliance  he  is  to  be  resisted,'  by  moral 
means  alone.     If  in  disobedience  he  claims  privileges  and 

*  Encyc.  Rel.  Knowl.  p.  1014. 


84 


TERMS    OF    COMMUNION. 


immunities  to  which,  by  the  divine  mle,  the  submissive  only 
are  entitled,  tliey  are  to  be  withheld.  Does  he  persevere  in 
his  disregard  of  spiritual  obligations  ?  The  inspired  remedy 
is  to  be  applied.  This  course  alone  Jehovah  approves : — 
"  Withdraw  thyself  from  every  brother  that  walketh  disor- 
derly." Beyond  this  no  church  dare  go.  The  delinquent 
is  not  accountaljle  to  human  authority,  ecclesiastical  or  civil. 
God  only  is  his  judge,  and  "to  his  own  master  he  standeth 
or  falleth."  So  long  as  a  man  does  not  violate  the  civil  peace 
and  order  by  the  exercise  of  his  religion,  he  cannot,  by  the 
laws  of  the  state,  be  disturbed.  For  his  faith  and  practice  he 
is  accountable  only  to  God.  Such  are  our  doctrines  on  the 
subject  of  religious  toleration. 

In  applying  these  principles,  we  in  the  second  place  re- 
mark, that  to  maintain  free  communion,  as  that  phrase  is  com- 
monly understood,  there  is  inflicted  upon  them  the  most 
palpable  and  injurious  violence. 

The  scriptural  canon,  given  in  the  passage  quoted  Irom  Mr. 
Hall,  furnishes  an  inspired  precedent,  which  is  accompanied 
by  an  application  made  by  the  apostle  himself,  fully  illustrat- 
ing what  is  required  of  us  in  its  exercise.  All  matters  in  rela- 
tion to  which  we  have  no  inspired  instructions,  either  con- 
tained in  particular  injunctions,  or  involved  in  general  prin- 
ciples, and  which  are  therefore  indifferent,  such  as  those 
especially  named  by  Paul,  the  eating  or  not  eating  certain 
kinds  of  food,  or  the  keeping  or  not  keeping  specified  days 
as  holy,  are  certainly  embraced  in  the  laws  of  toleration,  and 
every  man  has  a  right  to  act  without  restraint,  as  he  may  "  be 
full}''  persuaded  in  his  own  mind."  But  Avhen  he  proceeds 
to  embrace  doctrines  and  indulge  in  practices  plainly  and  ne- 
cessarily subversive  of  the  law  of  God,  must  v/e  still  conduct 
ourselves  towards  him  in  the  same  manner  ?  Would  it  be 
fliidiful  to  God  to  do  so  ?     Ought  such  a  man  to  expect  the 


CHRISTIAN    TOLERATION.  85 

church,  ill  siicli  a  case,  to  act  upon  tlie  same  principles  as 
they  would  were  his  peculiarity  only  a  matter  of  eating  certain 
kinds  of  food,  or  of  keeping  a  holy  day  ?  Fedobaptism  is 
demonstrably  a  subversion  of  the  law  of  Christ.  Arguments 
based  upon  the  apostolic  rules  regarding  Jewish  peculiarities, 
are  wholly  inapplicable  here,  and  cannot,  without  great  injury, 
be  forced  into  such  a  service.  Is  the  desecration  of  a  precept 
which  the  Hebrew  Christians  supposed  to  be  in  force,  but 
which  all  now  admit  was  not  so ;  and,  whatever  formerly 
might  have  been  true,  never  was  obligatory  on  the  Gentiles, 
to  be  placed  on  the  same  level  with  the  neglect  of  a  Christian 
ordinance,  which  all  confess  is  binding  upon  every  believer  ? 
The  indiscriminate  participation  of  meat  was  not  binding  on 
the  Jew  or  the  Gentile,  because  it  was  not  commanded. 
Nor  was  a  scrupulous  abstinence  imperative,  for  the  same 
reason.  Each  party  might  retam  his  peculiarity,  and  while 
he  did  not  violate  the  law  of  love,  practice  as  his  discretion 
might  suggest.  Let  our  opponents  prove  that  this  is  true  of 
baptism,  and  I,  foi*  one,  have  no  more  to  say  on  the  subject. 
I  will  confess  that  to  church  fellowship  it  is  a  matter  of  no 
consequence,  and  that  if  we  believe  a  man  is  a  Christian,  that 
he  is  born  again  of  the  Spirit,  we  are  bound  to  receive  him 
to  communion  without  baptism.  But  who  will  venture  to 
maintain  that  the  substitute  of  a  worldly  ceremony,  such,  for 
example,  as  infant  sprinkling,  for  an  ordinance  of  God,  is  ad- 
missible under  any  circumstances  ?  Who  will  suggest  that 
Christian  baptism  is  not  enjoined  on  all  behevers  ?  Until  it 
can  be  established  that  infant  baj)tism  is  allowable,  and  Chris- 
tian baptism  indifferent,  the  apostolic  canon  recited  can  have 
no  application  to  the  point  m  dci^ate  ;  and  it  remains  true  that 
our  docti'ine  is  yet  untouched,  which  fixes  repentance,  faith, 
and  baptism,  as  the  tenns  of  communion. 

We  ai*e  here  met,  however,  with  the  declaration  that  nei- 
8 


86  TERMS   CF    COMMUNION. 

ther  a  man's  doctrine  nor  practice  on  the  siil)jcct  of  baptism, 
can  be  of  "fundamental  importance."  He  may  rrject  our 
opinions,  and  yet  he  may  ])e  eminently  pious.  It  is  insisted, 
therefore,  that  to  tolerate  every  error  not  inconsistent  with  a 
state  of  sah'ation,  and  Pedobaptism  among  the  number,  is  not 
only  sanctioned  by  these  rules,  but  is  made  an  indispensable 
duty.  Consequently  that  all  such  professors,  of  whatever 
denomination,  as  cannot  be  proved  guilty  of  errors  which 
would  preclude  the  hope  of  their  attaining  to  everlasting  life, 
we  are  bound  to  invite,  and  admit  to  the  Lord's  tal)le !  But 
how  is  this  hypothesis  to  be  upheld  ?  Not  surely  by  any  of 
the  "canons"  recited.  Paul's  principles  of  toleration  are 
threefold.  They  require,  first,  that  God  shall  have  recei^'ed 
the  parties.  Secondly,  that  they  shall  be  conscientious.  And, 
thirdly,  that  their  peculiarities  be  not  subversive  of  any  divine 
law.  All  these  were  united  in  the  case  in  question,  decided 
by  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  Is  it  so  in  the  matter  now 
before  us  ?  If  this  much  can  be  made  to  appear,  there  is  an 
end  of  the  controversy.  We  must  receive  all  candidates  for 
communion  without  troubling  ourselves  to  inquire  whether 
they  have  been  baptized.  Mr.  Hall  selects  a  part  of  this 
threefold  principle,  reasons  from  it  as  if  it  were  the  whole,  and 
thus  arrives  at  a  concl'usion  unwarranted  by  the  premises. 
Reduced  to  a  simple  proposition,  it  amounts  to  this  :  Chris- 
tian churches  are  to  receive  all  whom  God  has  received,  who 
are  conscientious,  and  whose  peculiarities  are  not  subversive 
of  any  existing  divine  law.  Let  us  now  see  whether  tliis  rule 
enjoins  the  reception  to  church  fellowship  of  pious  Pcdo- 
baptists.  Has  God  received  them  ?  We  trust  he  has.  Are 
they  conscientious  ?  We  are  willing  to  admit  that  they  may 
it)e.  Is  this  peculianty  subversive  of  any  existing  divine 
law  ?  Most  assuredly  it  is  ;  nor  is  it  admissible,  as  has  been 
done  to  turn  aside  the  argument,  to  substitute  for  the  phrase 


CIIUISTIAN    TULEHATION.  87 

"not  subversive  of  any  existing  divine  law,"  "  not  incompa- 
tible willi  a  state  of  salvation."  'J'liis  is  a  logical  finesse, 
makes  a  false  issue,  and  cannot  be  allowed.  Tlieir  reception 
by  us  would,  on  our  part,  amount  to  a  conspiracy  witii  tliem 
in  their  design  to  o\'erthrow  the  law  of  God,  and  render  us, 
not  Christian  communicants,  but  partners  in  their  rebellion 
against  the  authoril}^  of  the  supreme  Legislator. 

We  are  authorized,  therefore,  to  conclude,  that  the  apostolic 
canons  enjoining  toleration,  relate  to  things  we  have  explained 
by  the  term  indifferent,  and  cannot  be  forced  into  the  service 
of  open  communionists.  The  fallacy  which  has  led  any 
sensible  man  to  a  different  conclusion,  has  been,  as  we  have 
now  seen,  induced  by  their  confounding  things  Avhich  are 
essentially  different,  such  as  those  we  have  just  mentioned 
^tlie  making  principles  subversive  of  a  divine  law,  the  same 
thing  with  prmciples  incompatible  with  a  state  of  salvation. 
Need  I  say  a  single  word  to  demonstrate  their  palpable  dif- 
ference ?  Surely  it  is  one  thing  to  tolerate,  in  a  Cliristian 
church,  the  eating  or  not  eating  certain  food,  and  similar  mat- 
ters ;  yet  another  to  tolerate  a  human  in^'ention  which  is 
brouglit  in  to  take  the  place  of  a  Christian  ordinance ;  and 
still  quite  another  to  be  in  a  state  of  salvation.  If  these  are 
all  the  same,  as  the  argument  we  are  now  controverting 
assumes,  vv^e  may  well  exclaim,  with  the  disciples,  "  Who 
then  can  be  saved  ?"  For  in  what  direction  do  we  cast  our 
eyes,  among  the  sects  around  us,  in  w^hich  we  do  not  see 
human  inventions  substituted  for  divine  institutions  !  It  is 
one  thing  to  dispense  with  that  uniformity  which  was  not 
required  in  the  primitive  churches,  and  quite  another  thing  to 
dispense  with  that  which  was,  confessedly,  demanded.  It 
is  one  thing  to  abstain  from  new  terms  of  felloAvshap,  and 
altogether  another  thing  to  deviate  from  old  terms,  which  are 
of  divme  appointment ;  unchangeable  in  their  nature  ;  and  of 


88  TERMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

universal  obligation ;  even  though  in  both  cases  the  parties 
may  be  Christians,  and  in  a  state  of  salvation.  Repentance 
towards  God,  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ,  and  submission 
to  baptism,  were,  it  is  acknowledged,  in  the  primitive  church, 
the  terms  of  communion.  Unless  we  are  at  liberty  to  nullify 
the  laws  of  God  by  which  they  were  made  such,  and  to 
enact  others,  it  is  still  true  that  the  experience  of  whatever  is 
essential  to  repentance  for  sin,  the  profession  of  whatever  is 
essential  to  saving  faith,  and  the  submission  to  whatever  is 
essential  to  Christian  baptism,  must  continue  to  be  the  terms 
of  communion.  Let  us  never  forget  the  inspired  admonition, 
"  There  is  07ie  Lawgiver,"*  and  forbear  any  attempts  to  sup- 
plant him.  His  wisdom  forbids  us  to  imagine  that  by  his 
general  enactments,  he  desti'oys  the  authority  and  obligation 
of  his  special  statutes,  or  that  he  Avill  permit  us  to  assume 
his  prerogative,  and  place  our  own  inventions  superior  to  his 
laws  in  the  government  of  his  kingdom. 

It  remains  for  us,  in  the  third  place, — and  in  view  of  what 
has  now  been  said,  we  can  do  so  with  much  brevity, — to 
present  a  correct  exposition  of  the  word  of  God  relating  to 
this  subject. 

As  if  he  had  foreseen,  and  designed  to  counteract,  the 
identical  perversions  now  attempted  to  be  made,  Paul,  m 
the  very  context  of  the  passages  recited,  setting  forth  the 
inspired  rules  of  toleration,  expressly  dist'nguishes  the  diver- 
sities then  practised,  in  relation  to  which  these  rules  were 
revealed,  from  the  righteousness  which  pertains  to  the  king- 
dom of  God.  "  The  kingdom  of  God,"  he  asserts,  "  is  not 
meat  and  drink,  but  righteousness,  and  peace,  and  jo}^  in  the 
Holy  Ghost."  And  to  the  same  purpose,  in  relation  to 
observances  which  under  a  former  dispensation,  had  been 
imperative,  he  said  to  the  Corinthians  : — "  Circumcision  is 

*  James  iv.  12. 


CHRISTIAN    TOLERATION.  89 

notliing,  and  uncirciimcision  is  nothing,  but  l;:eeping  the  com- 
mandments" of  God  is  of  great  moment.  Thus  he  carefully 
distinguishes  between  abrogated  rites,  ceremonies  indifferent 
in  themselves,  and  existing  christian  commands,  obedience  to 
which  is  requisite  to  "fullil  all  righteousness."  The  apostle, 
in  other  words,  says  to  the  primitive  churches : — Do  not 
mistake  tlie  principle  upon  which  toleration  is  enjoined. 
The  points  of  disagreement  bet^veen  you,  if  subversive  of  no 
existing  divine  law,  may  be  safely  left  to  your  own  discretion. 
Each  party  is  at  hberty  to  eat  meat  or  herbs,  to  observe  days, 
or  to  disregard  them,  as  his  inclination  may  prompt.  But 
beware  of  extending  this  rule  too  far.  Remember,  that 
tliough  the  kingdom  of  God  consists  not  in  meat  and  drink, 
it  does  consist  in  righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the 
Holy  Ghost.  You  are  required  to  fulfil  all  rigliteousncss, 
in  the  manner,  and  order,  of  the  di\ine  appointment.  The 
keeping  of  the  commandments  of  God  is  of  perpetual  obliga- 
tion. The  duties  belonging  to  the  Christian  dispensation, 
consequently,  although  then*  neglect  may  not  be  considered 
destructive  of  the  salvation  of  the  soul,  so  far  from  being 
confounded  with  the  peculiarities  of  the  Jews  or  of  the 
Gentiles,  are  exliibited  by  tlie  apostle,  in  contrast  with  them. 
To  treat  them  as  similar  then  is  prejDOslerous,  and  diametri- 
cally in  conflict  wdth  the  true  intent  and  desiga  of  the  very 
canons  so  gratuitously  pressed  into  service  on  the  subject. 

How,  then,  stands  the  case  ?  Mr.  Hall  asserts  that  the 
ancient  diversities  respecting  meats,  holydays,  and  circum- 
cision, and  the  modern  diversities  regarding  the  question 
whether  we  shall  or  shall  not  be  baptized,  are  similar ;  Paul 
declares  they  are  dissimilar.  Mr.  Hall  msists  they  should 
be  treated  alike  ;  Paul  tells  us  they  must  be  treated  differently. 
I  need  not  intunate  which  of  the  two  is  cntided  to  superior 
respect,  nor  su2:gest  the  direction  in  which  oar  decision 
8* 


90  TERMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

should  incline.  A  diversity  of  opinions  and  practice  regard- 
ing things  indifferent,  and  abrogated  Jewish  rites,  was,  it  is 
gi'anted,  no  bar  to  Christian  fellowship  in  primitive  churches, 
nor  is  it  so  at  present.  To  argue  on  this  account,  that  a 
diversity  of  opinions  and  practice  in  relation  to  the  subjects, 
tJie  substance,  and  the  benefits  of  Christian  baptism  is  alike 
of  no  cDnsequence  in  our  churches,  and  that  the  only  pre- 
liminary to  sacramental  intercourse  now  to  be  regarded  is  the 
hope  that  the  candidate  may  be  in  a  condition  "  not  incon- 
sistent with  salvation,"  is  to  place  a  public  profession  of 
religion,  in  the  form  commanded  by  the  blessed  Redeemer, 
on  the  same  level  with  the  old  abrogated  Jewish  rites,  and 
things  indifferent ;  to  advocate  principles  opposed  equally  to 
sound  reason,  and  plain  Scriptm-e  truth ;  to  plead  in  behalf 
of  a  theory  which,  if  permitted  to  enter  into  our  practice, 
must,  in  a  variety  of  important  respects,  ultimately,  render 
"wholly  inoperative  the  laws  and  authority  of  Jesus  Christ. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

REPLY  TO  SUCH  OBJECTIONS  TO  OUR  DOCTRINE  ON  SACRA- 
MENTAL COMMUNION  AS  ARE  FOUNDED  ON  THE  SPIRITU- 
ALITY OF  THE  GOSPEL,  AND  DRAWN  FROM  OTHER  AND 
MISCELLANEOUS    SOURCES. 

The  spiritual  nature  of  the  Gospel  not  inconsistent  with  its  outward 
forms — The  promptings  of  Christian  feeling — The  duty  of  recogniz- 
ing as  such,  all  that  we  believe  to  be  truly  converted — Pedobaptists 
sincerely  believe  themselves  right — We  associate  with  thcxn  in  other 
departments  of  worship — As  every  man  is  responsible  for  himself  to 
God,  we  are  bound  to  respect  their  faith,  and  in  receiving  them  do 
not  violate  our  own. 

The  principles  which  we  advocate  for  the  regulation  of 
Christian  communion,  which  we  have  shown  to  be  scrip- 
tural, and  the  only  divinely  appointed  rules  existing  on  the 
subject,  cannot,  it  is  alleged,  be  maintained  for  another 
reason.  They  are,  it  is  affirmed,  at  war  with  the  spirituality 
inculcated  by  the  Gospel.  "The  genius  of  the  Gospel,  lot 
it  be  remembered,"  says  ]Mr.  Hall,  "is  not  ceremonial,  but 
spiritual ;  consisting  not  in  outward  observances,  but  in  the 
cuhivation  of  such  interior  graces  as  compose  the  essence  of 
virtue,  perfect  the  character,  and  purify  the  heart.  These 
form  the  soul  of  religion ;  all  the  rest  are  but  her  terrestrial 
attire,  which  she  will  lay  aside  when  she  passes  the  threshold 
of  eternity.  When,  therefore,  the  obligations  of  humility  and 
love  come  in  competition  with  a  punctual  observance  of 
external  rites,  the  genius  of  religion  will  easily  detennine  to 
which  we  should  incline."-^ 

*  Complete  Works,  Amer.  ed.  vol.  i.  p.  360. 

91 


92  TERMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

The  dazzling  beauty  of  style  in  which  this  argument  Is 
cloilied,  must  not  Mdthdraw  our  attention  from  the  fact,  that 
it  proceeds  wholly  upon  the  assumption,  that  obedience  to 
tlie  laws  of  the  Gospel  may  be,  and  sometimes  is,  in  conflict 
with  tlie  genius  of  the  Gospel.  Is  it  possible  that  this  can 
ever  be  ti'ue  ?  If  so,  by  all  means  let  these  laws,  so  inimical 
to  spirituality,  be  canceled.  Let  us  banish  the  antiquated 
notion  tliat  external  rites  are  still  obligatory.  These  are  the 
mere  attire,  the  garments  in  which  religion  is  dressed.  They 
may  be  Roman  or  English,  Lutheran  or  Reforaied,  Mahom- 
medan  or  Christian.  It  is  of  no  importance.  Spirituality 
is  all !  But  let  us  pause,  and  reflect.  Is  not  obedience  to 
the  Christian  commands,  the  very  criterion,  not  only  of  love 
to  the  Saviour,  but  also  of  love  to  our  brethren  ?  Can  we, 
without  this  testimony,  give  sufficient  or  satisfactory  proof 
of  our  spirituality  ?  Did  not  Christ  require  of  his  disciples 
this  evidence  of  their  affection  ?  "  If  ye  love  me  keep  my 
commandments.  Ye  are  my  friends  if  ye  do  whatsoever  I 
command  you."  Do  you  love  me ;  are  you  my  friends  ? 
How  do  you  establish  the  afhrmation  of  these  inquiries? 
By  cultivating  exclusively  the  interior  graces  of  spirituality  ? 
So  thought  not  Jesus  Christ — Keep  my  commandments,  for 
by  tliis  means  alone  can  you  prove  your  claims  to  spirituality. 
John,  the  beloved,  the  afl^ectionate,  the  spiritual  disciple, 
never  once  imagined  that  "the  obligations  of  humility  and 
love"  could  possibly  "  come  in  competition  with  a  punctual 
observance  of  external  rites,"  and  thus  violate  "  the  genius  of 
religion."  If  he  did  he  preached  most  strangely.  "By 
this,"  said  he,  "  we  know  that  we  love  the  children  of  God, 
when  we  lo\^e  God,  and  keep  his  commandments.  For  this 
is  the  love  of  God,  that  we  keep  his  commandments,  and  his 
commandments  are  not  giievous."  But  I  am  reminded  that 
all  this  was   long   since.     At  that  time  it  was   in  perfect 


SriKITUALITY    OF    THE    GOSPEL.  93 

harmony  with  tlie  genius  of  the  Gospel.  A  change  has 
since  come  over  us.  Years  have  passed,  centiuies  have 
multipHed,  hoary  time  ha5  set  his  seal  of  condemnation  upon 
these  unfasliionable  notions.  The  order  established  by 
Christ,  to  govern  the  administration  of  Christian  ordinances, 
is  noiv  in  conflict  with  the  genius  of  the  Gospel !  This, 
indeed,  is  giving  us  new  light,  for  which,  as  in  duty  bound, 
we  offer  expressions  of  gratitude  to  the  bold  illuminator, 
whose  hand  has  unlocked  the  hidden  reservoir  of  so  much 
effulgence.  But  let  us  analyze  more  closely  its  properties. 
Is  it  not  merely  a  phosphoric  glare  which  has  its  origin  from 
buried  puti'escence  ? 

By  whom  is  tiie  assertion  authorized  that  "  The  genius 
of  the  Gospel  is  not  ceremonial,  but  spiritual ;  consisting  not 
m  outward  obser\-ances,  but  in  the  cultivation  of  such  interior 
graces  as  compose  the  essence  of  virtue,  perfect  the  character, 
and  purify  the  heart?"  Certainly  the  great  Author  of  Reve- 
lation, in  no  part  of  his  Vv^ord,  gives  any  countenance  lo  such 
a  dictation.  That  spirituahty  is  an  essential,  and  the  most 
essential  feature,  in  the  religion  of  the  cross,  all  well  regulated 
minds  firmly  believe,  and  unwaveringly  maintain ;  but  that 
this  is  its  only  feature ;  that  it  has  no  oi-ner ;  in  a  word  that 
religion  is  exclusively  spiritual,  no  one,  I  had  supposed,  but 
a  Quaker,  would,  for  a  moment,  imagine.  If  religion  is  not 
still,  partly  at  least,  ceremonial,  consisting  in  external  observ- 
ances, why  this  controversy  about  partaking  of  the  symbols 
of  the  Lord's  death ;  this  hubbub  to  decide  who  shall,  and 
who  shall  not,  commune  ?  The  eucharist  is  nothing  but  an 
external  rite,  an  outward  observance  merely.  They  ought 
to  discard  this  also  as  well  as  baptism.  Let  them  both  gc 
together.  They  should,  to  be  consistent,  adopt  a  communion 
that  is  wdioUy  spiritual.  These  very  sticklers  for  spirituality 
and  against  form,  have,  however,  all  received  what  they  call 


94  TERMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

baptism,  tliey  insist  too  upon  coming  to  llie  Lord's  table ; 
and  what  are  these,  but  ceremonies — the  solemn,  significant, 
and  divinely  appointed  ceremonies  of  the  Gospel  dispensa- 
tion ?  For  a  Baptist,  or  a  Pcdobaptist,  who  derives  his 
nominal  designation  from  his  practice  of  ceremonies,  to  deny 
that  tlie  genius  of  the  Gospel  partakes  in  any  degree  of  out- 
ward forms,  is  in  one  word  to  conti'adict  and  condemn  himself. 

It  is  in  ^'ain  to  tell  us  that  "  The  interior  graces  form  the 
soul  of  religion,"  and  that  "all  the  rest  are  but  the  terrestrial 
attire,  whicli  she  will  lay  aside  when  she  passes  the  threshold 
of  eternity."  It  so  happens  that  we  are,  at  present,  and  all 
(yhristian  communicants  must  necessarily  continue,  while  this 
conti'oversy  shall  remain  of  any  importance,  on  this  side  the 
threshold  of  eternity.  As  Christians,  therefore,  whose  dwelling 
place  is  still  the  earth,  our  duty  is  not  to  lay  aside  the  terrestrial 
attire  of  religion,  but  to  "  put  on  the  Lord  Jesus."  It  would 
not  be  seemly  to  receive  into  our  family,  and  entertain  a 
man,  destitute  of  garments.  The  decencies  of  society  demand 
that  he  shall  be  clothed.  But  it  is  equally  uncomely  to  intro- 
duce to  the  sacred  table  those  who  are  not  furnished  with  the 
vestments  of  the  former  ordinance.  We  have  no  right,  until 
Christ  shall  call  us  hence,  to  lay  aside  the  habiliments  with 
which  he  has  supplied  us,  and  which  he  has  commanded  us 
to  wear. 

Punctilious  attention  to  outward  rites  is  unquestionably  our 
duty.  So  is  the  cultivation  of  spirituality.  The  authority 
for  both  is  the  same.  The  graces  of  the  Spirit  were  certainly 
never  intended  to  supersede  the  forms  of  religion;  nor  is 
ritual  obedience  necessarily  inimical  to  the  cultivation  of 
such  interior  endowments  as  compose  the  essence  of  virtue, 
perfect  the  cliaracter,  and  purify  the  heart.  If  a  scrupulous 
regard  of  one  of  these  involved  a  neglect  of  the  other,  then  we 
would  weigh  them,  select  the  more  important,  and  abandon 


SPIRITUALITY    OF    TITF.    GOSPEL.  95" 

the  rest.  But  as  no  such  thing  can  be  pretended,  the  inappli- 
cabihty  of  the  ar^iment  renders  it  utterly  poindess.  He  who 
sent  forth  his  Sphit  to  sanctify  his  disciples,  and  enjoined 
them  to  love  one  anodier,  also  commanded  them  to  teach  all 
nations,  baptizing  diem  in  the  name  of  the  t  ather,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  they  were  to  do,  and 
subsequently  admonish  them  to  observe  all  other  tlnngs 
enjoined  by  the  Redeemer.  Instead,  therefore,  of  appealing 
to  "  the  genius  of  rehgion,"  to  determine  "  to  which  we  shall 
incline,"  we  should  be  attentive  to  the  insti-uctions  of  him 
who  has  said  "  These  things  ought  ye  to  have  done,  and  not 
to  have  left  the  other  undone." 

Can  any  thing  be  discoxered,  I  now  ask,  in  the  spiritual 
nature  of  religion  to  change  our  conclusions  regarding  the 
scriptural  doctrines  respecting  the  sacram.ent.  I  fearlessly 
reply,  it  is  impossible.  It  remains,  for  aught  we  have  seen, 
still  true,  that  repentance,  faith,  and  baptism,  are  the  inspired 
and  indispensable  terms  of  communion. 

We  shall  close  this  branch  of  our  discussion  by  replying 
briefly  to  some  ar^unents  of  a  miscellaneous  character,  v.'hich 
have  been  thought  pertinent  to  the  subject.  The  first  of  these 
is  that  the  promptings  of  religious  afiection  are  inconsistent 
with  close  communion.  It  is  alleged  that  it  "  sets  the  con- 
duct and  the  feelings  at  variance,  and  erects  into  a  duty  the 
mortification  of  our  best  and  holiest  propensities." 

Can  this  statement,  let  me  ask,  be  true  ?  I  think  it  can- 
not. Are  not  our  best  and  holiest  propensities  those  which 
lead  us  to  a  strict  adherence  to  all  the  laws  of  Christ?  When 
forced  to  choose  between  a  union  with  a  particular  class  of 
Christians,  and  a  violation  of  our  duty  to  the  Redeemer, 
which  do  our  best  and  holiest  feelings  prompt  us  to  select  ?  I 
hold  it  to  be  evident,  beyond  question,  that  a  refusal  to  unite, 
even  with  those  whom  we  most  love,  in  an  infi-acuon  of  the 


9Q  TERMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

law  of  God,  so  far  from  being  a  mortification,  is  the  most 
appropriate  exercise  of  our  best  and  holiest  propensities.  The 
Christian  feehngs  which  are  incapable  of  such  decision  cannot 
be  good  or  holy. 

The  second  argument  alluded  to,  maintains  that  we  are 
bound  in  duty  to  recognize  at  tlie  Lord's  table  all  those  we 
believe  to  be  Christians.  "The  Bible,"  says  Mr.  Hall, 
"  gives  general  rules  of  action,  broad  principles,  leaving  them 
to  be  applied  under  the  guidance  of  sound  discretion ;  and 
wherever  it  has  decided  a  doubtful  question,  accompanied  by 
an  express  statement  of  the  principle  on  which  the  decision 
is  founded,  such  explanation  has  all  the  force  of  an  apostolic 
canon,  by  which  we  are  bound  to  regulate  our  conduct  in  all 
the  variety  of  cases  to  which  it  applies." 

But  Mr.  Hall  himself  says,  as  we  have  before  seen — "  The 
apostles,  it  is  acknowledged,  admitted  none  to  the  Lord's 
sapper,  but  such  as  were  previously  baptized."  Why  then, 
let  me  ask,  should  ive  do  so  1  Our  opponents  talk  of  "  Gene- 
ral rules,  broad  principles  to  be  applied  under  the  guidance 
of  sound  discretion."  Are  the  general  rules  of  the  Bible  so 
framed  that  they  subvert  its  especial  laws  ?  Are  the  "  broad 
principles"  of  the  Scriptures  at  variance  with  the  command- 
ments of  Christ  ?  Has  our  Lord  given  us  rules  of  perpetual 
obligation  to  regulate  Christian  and  sacramental  intercourse, 
and  then  by  a  general  arrangement,  broad  principles,  authorized 
us  to  dispense  with  them  ?  Baptism  was,  for  a  special  pur- 
pose, enjoined  on  every  believer,  at  the  commencement  of 
the  Christian  life ;  but  general  rules,  broad  principles,  are 
furnished,  which,  "  under  the  guidance  of  sound  discretion," 
justify  us  in  dispensing  with  the  injunction  !  Does  sound, 
discretion  teach  us  such  a  lesson  ?  Assuredly  not.  We  are 
to  receive  all  he  has  received,  and  according  to  the  laws,  not 
which  we  imagine  jnny  govern  him  in  bestowing  upon  tliem 


GKNERAL    LAWS.  97 

salvation,  but  which  he  has  enacted  for  our  intercourse : 
which  are,  as  we  have  shown,  ample  in  tlieir  extent,  and 
obvious  in  tlieir  import.  We  have  no  authority  from  any 
laws,  gcneraU  or  special,  nor  are  we  permitted  to  receive 
any  man,  however  undoubted  may  be  his  piety,  in  any  other 
manner  than  as  he  has  prescribed  and  commanded.  When 
it  was  apparent  to  Peter  that  God  had  received  those  converts 
who  were  assembled  in  the  house  of  Cornelius,  he  imme- 
diately inquired — "  Can  any  man  forbid  water  that  these 
should  not  be  baptized,  who  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost, 
as  well  as  we  ?  And  he  commanded  them  to  be  baptized." 
Our  opponents  propose  to  dispense  with  all  such  sectarian 
proceedings.  They  will  ask,  simply,  whether  the  Lord  has 
received  them  to  commune  with  him.  If  this  can  be  made 
probable,  they  must  receive  them  to  all  ecclesiastical  privi- 
leges without  regard  to  any  divine  law  on  the  subject.  Can 
it  be  pleasing  to  God,  or  religious  in  men,  in  deference  to  a 
spurious  Catholicism,  thus  to  withstand  Jehovah,  and  set  at 
naught  his  commandments  ?     I  presume  not. 

A  third  objection  is  proposed  against  confining  sacramental 
intercourse  to  baptized  believers.  Pedobaptists,  if  they  are 
in  error,  it  is  alleged,  sincerely  believe  themselves  right; 
their  error,  being  "  involuntary,"  is  more  an  "  infirmity" 
than  a  fault.  "  The  only  method,"  observes  Mr.  Hall,  "  of 
arriving  at  a  satisfactory  conclusion,  is  to  consider  how  tlie 
aposiles  conducted  themselves  towards  sincere  but  erring 
Christians,  together  with  the  temper  they  recommend  us  to 
cultivate  towards  such  as  labor  under  mistakes  and  miscon- 
ceptions not  inconsistent  with  piety."* 

We  undoubtedly  ought  to  act  towards  such  persons  as  the 
apostles  themselves  would  have  done.  But  how  shall  we 
judge  of  what  their  conduct  would  have  been  in  relation  to 

*  Worlvs,  vol.  ii.  p.  217. 
1) 


98  TERMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

such,  had  any  appeared  in  their  churches,  afflicted  witli  {he 
malady  of  being-  in  invohintary  error,  and  of  sincerity,  and 
conscienlioiisness,  in  maintaining  it  ?  I  answer,  by  what, 
under  die  influence  of  divine  inspiration,  they  instructed 
otliers  to  do.  We  can  be  at  no  loss,  whatever,  on  this  part 
of  our  subject.  Such  a  rule  of  judgment  is  not,  I  think, 
likely  to  lead  us  mto  material  error  in  our  decision.  Had  an 
unbaptized  Christian  presented  himself  to  the  apostles,  claim- 
ing immunities  on  the  score  of  his  sincerity,  or  on  any  olher 
score,  they  would  certainly  have  treated  him  precisely  as  we 
do  Pedobaptists,  as  nothing  more  nor  less  than  as  an  unliap- 
tized  Christian.  They  would  have  recognized  his  Chris- 
tianity, but  they  would  not  have  deviated  from  the  law  of 
Christ  in  deference  to  his  cn-or,  however  sincere  he  mi<dit 
have  been  in  embracing  or  maintaining  it.  This  is  precisely 
the  course  we  pursue.  We  think  our  Pedobaptist  brethren 
Christians,  and  we  treat  them  as  such.  We  believe  them  to 
be  unbaptized  Christians,  and  we  treat  them  as  such.  We 
regulate  our  thoughts,  and  our  actions,  in  both  cases,  by  the 
laws  of  Christ.  One  of  these  laws  requires  us  to  judge  of 
men  by  their  fruits,  and  another  obliges  us  to  admit  to  ihe 
communion  only  l:)aplizcd  believers.  By  tlie  former  we  de- 
cide that  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  are  Christians,  and  we 
should  rejoice  to  extend  to  them  the  fellowship  of  the  church ; 
but  agi-eea])ly  to  tlie  latter  we  can  receive  them  in  tliat  way, 
and  in  no  otlier,  which  Christ  has  prescribed.  Thus  we  are 
perfecdy  certain  Ave  act  towards  all  such,  and  treat  them  pre- 
cisely as  the  apostles  would  have  done,  had  they  appeared 
in  tlieir  asseml)lies. 

Those  Christians  who  sincerely  and  conscientiously  ex- 
clude baptism  from  their  system,  may  act  in  the  matter  to 
please  themselves.  It  is  no  concern  of  ours.  To  tlieir  own 
master  they  stand  or  fall.  Tliev  have,  it  may  l)e,  "  conscien- 


SINCIiKITY   OF   15kj,ii:f.  99 

tiously  mistaken  the  mind  of  Christ."     Tliey  govern  ihem- 
selves,  individually  and  as  churches,  by  their  own  convic- 
tions of  obligation.     But  am  I,  because  such  is  the  state  of 
the  case,  required,  or  if  I  felt  inclined  to  do  so,  am  I  permit- 
ted to  infringe  inspired  injunctions  by  recognizing  their  sin- 
cerity in  error  as  a  substitute  for  the  practice  of  the  truth, 
and  that  too  for  no  other  reason  than  to  prove  that  I  enter- 
tain for  them  a  very  high  Christian  regard  ?     Am  I  told  that 
I  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  faith  of  another ;  that  he  is 
accountable  alone  to  God?    AU  this  is  true  as  long  as  he 
makes  no  pretensions  to  connect  himself  with  me  in  church 
feUowship.     But  apply  the  doctrine  to  church  discipline, 
that  we  have  no  right  to  inquire  into  the  faith  of  our  asso- 
ciates, and  whom  could  you  ever  exclude  for  heresy.     Uni- 
tarians, Momions,  Universalists,  and  all  other  defamers  of 
evangelical  piety,  might  fix  themselves  upon  you  like  an 
incubus,  and  you  would  be  destitute  of  any  remedy  whatever. 
No,  when  an  individual  enters  the  church  he  declares  his 
union  with  the  faith  of  the  church.     Does  a  Pedobaptist 
honestly  believe,  after  an  impartial  examination  of  the  best 
evidence  to  which  he  can  gain  access  on  the  subject,  that  he 
has  received  Christian  baptism,  and  that  he  has  truly  entered 
the  congregation  of  Christ,  in  the  way  of  the  divine  appoin't- 
ment.     Let  him  prosecute  the  course  he  has  adopted.     But, 
certauily,  he  has  no  right  to  expect  me,  on  that  account,  to 
abandon  my  own  convictions  and  to  unite  with  him  in  those 
practices  which  he  may  have  thouglit  proper  to  adopt.   I  am 
guided  by  my  own  faith,  and  not  by  the  faith  of  any  other 
man.     Baptism  without  a  profession  of  fliith  is  justified  as 
readily  as  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  supper  without 
baptism.     They  have  no  scriptural  authority  for  either,  but 
they  do  both.     They  act  upon  their  own  belief,  and  upon 
their  own  responsibility.  But  in  neither  case  may  the  dictates 


100  TERMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

of  their  consciences  be  the  directory  for  my  actions.  It  is  no 
more  a  consequence  that,  because  on  their  own  principles, 
they  are  entitled  to  approach  the  Lord's  table,  that,  therefore, 
it  is  my  duty  to  unite  with  them  in  that  ordinance,  than  that, 
because  on  their  own  principles  they  are  obliged  to  baptize 
their  infants,  that,  therefore,  I  am  required  to  unite  with 
them  in  that  ceremony.  Besides  all  this,  it  is  to  me  evident 
that  a  deviation  from  the  law  of  Christ  in  complaisance  to 
the  mistakes  of  Christians,  however  conscientiously  enter- 
tained, would  indicate  a  greater  value  for  the  erring  servant, 
than  for  the  infinitely  wise  and  supreme  Lord.  Could  we 
regard  their  neglect  of  divine  ordinances  as  a  deliberate  con- 
tempt, this  would  invalidate,  in  our  esteem,  all  their  Chris- 
tian pretensions,  and  we  should  govern  our  conduct  towards 
them  accordingly.  We  cannot,  however,  but  admit  that  an 
error  of  this  nature,  sincerely  entertained,  though  not  entirely 
involuntary,  is  compatible  with  Christianity.  If  we  cannot 
produce  a  conviction  and  practice  of  the  truth,  we  have  no 
alternative  but  to  be  guided  by  the  apostolic  instructions 
before  recited  to  the  church  at  Thessalonica,  in  the  case  of 
a  member  who  walked  not  according  to  the  commandment. 
They  were  directed  to  "  withdraw  themselves"  from  him, 
yet  "  not  to  count  him  as  an  enemy,  but  to  admonish  him  as 
a  brother." 

It  is  suggested,  as  a  fourth  argument,  that  as  we  are 
associated  with  Pedobaptists  in  all  other  forms,  it  is  in- 
consistent to  withdraw  from  them  in  this  department  of 
Christian  worship. 

We  have,  I  observe  in  reply,  already  fully  conceded  their 
general  Christian  character.  As  such  we  fraternize  with 
them  in  every  form  not  sacramental.  We  deem  this  a  suf- 
ficient testimony  of  our  good  will,  and  desire  for  their  pros- 
perity, so  far  as  they  are  engaged  with  us  in  the  same  com- 


INCOXSISTENCr.  l(Jl 

mon  cause.  AVe  give  them  ercdit  for  sincerity,  and  for 
conscientiousness.  What  more  can  be  required  ?  The 
exercises  in  which  we  unite  with  them  were  duties  before 
baptism  was  instituted,  and  M'ould  have  remained  duties  to 
the  end  of  time  liad  no  Christian  churches  existed.  Since 
these  flicts  are  undoubted,  can  die  course  on  our  part  indi- 
cated, be  inconsistent  with  the  opinions  we  entertain  ?  Such 
a  thing  is  impossible.  It  is  our  pleasure  to  pursue  it,  when 
we  think  proper  ;  and  still,  in  our  judgment,  infant  sprinkling 
is  not  Christian  baptism  :  Christain  baptism  is  the  only- 
authorized  mode  of  entrance  into  the  visible  church ;  the 
church  of  Christ  must  be  constituted  and  governed  aoree- 
ably  to  his  laws  ;  and,  in  no  case,  can  even  a  consicentious 
performance  of  any  ceremony  not  authorized  by  the  supreme 
Legislator,  be  considered  equivalent  to  Christian  obedience. 

Numerous  other  objections  have  been  started  against  strict 
connnunion  ;  but,  as  they  are  of  very  little  importance,  and 
will  be  alluded  to,  incidentally,  hereafter,  I  shall  not  now 
pause  to  consider  them.  They  assume  that  the  practice  is 
illiberal  and  harsh,  that  it  is  injurious,  that  it  is  odious,  and 
that  it  is  unpopular.  It  is  sufficient  to  respond  to  them  all 
by  the  single  remark,  that  our  blessed  Redeemer  is  the  best 
judge  as  to  what  is  illiberal,  harsh,  injurious,  odious,  and 
unpopular.     To  him  we  cheerfully  submit  the  decision. 

We  have  now,  briefly,  but  carefully,  and  impartially, 
reviewed,  in  diis  chapter  and  the  two  preceding,  all  the 
arguments  acknowleflged  to  be  of  any  importance,  employ- 
ed to  overthrow  the  principles  we  have  established,  and 
by  which  sacramental  communion  is  divinely  regulalv^d ; 
whether  derived  from  the  supposed  nature  of -the  adminis- 
tration of  John  the  Baptist ;  the  inspired  canons  of  Cliris- 
tian  toleration ;  the  spiritual  nature  of  the  Gospel ;  tlie 
promptings  of  religious  feeling ;  the  obligatians  of  brotherly 

9* 


102  TERMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

love  ;  the  duty  of  exercising  lenity  towards  erring  brethren ; 
and  the  supposed  inconsistency  of  engaging  with  Pedobap- 
tists  in  other  departments  of  worship,  and  declining  their 
intercourse  at  the  Lord's  table  ;  and  we  have  seen  that  so 
far  from  mvalidating  or  even  weakening  in  the  slightest  de- 
gree, they  all  combine  to  strengthen,  and  more  fully  confirm 
our  conclusions.  Here  we  rest  this  part  of  the  discussion, 
under  the  fullest  conviction  that  repentance  towards  God, 
faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  baptism  in  the  name  of 
the  holy  Trinity,  are  incontrovertibly  the  terms  of  communion 
appointed  and  established  by  the  King  in  Zion,  and  from 
which  we  are  forbidden,  by  the  most  sacred  obligations,  at 
any  time,  for  any  purpose,  or  under  any  circumstances,  to 
depart.  "  What  thing  soever  I  command  you,"  saith  the 
Lord  Jehovah,  "observe  to  do  it.  Thou  shalt  not  add 
thereto,  nor  dimmish  from  it." 


CHAPTER  VII. 

WE  ARE  NOT  AT  LIBERTY  TO  ADMINISTER  THE  LORd's  SUP- 
PER FOR  ANY  PURPOSES  OTHER  THAN  THOSE  DESIGNATED 
BY  OUR  LORD  JESUS  CHRIST. 

The  design  of  the  Lord's  Supper  not  a  test  of  Christian  love — Recip- 
rocal confidence,  or  religious  fellowship — Pedobaptists  and  Quakers 
— Communion  administered  to  secure  popularity — Withheld  as  a 
punishment — Verbal  nonsense — Open  communion  not  an  act  of  faith, 
obedience,  or  worship. 

The  inquiiy  is  now  suggested  whether  we  are  at  liberty 
to  administer  the  Lord's  supper  for  any  purposes  other  than 
those  appointed  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Let  us  deter- 
mine what  these  purposes  are.  We  will  also  designate  some 
of  the  errors  which  have  prevailed  in  relation  to  them,  among 
ourselves  and  our  brethren  of  other  denominations.  Let  us 
inquire  by  what  evils  the  errors  in  question  have  been  at- 
tentled.  These  considerations,  if  properly  examined,  and 
fully  understood,  will  more  deeply  impress  us  with  the  duty 
of  circumspection,  and  a  firm  and  imyieldmg  conformity  in 
all  things  to  the  teachings  of  the  divine  law. 

What  are  the  specific  purposes  for  which  the  sacrament 
of  the  Lord's  supper  was  instituted?  To  determine  what 
is  the  con-ect  answer  to  this  question  we  can  have  no  dif- 
ficulty. "  Do  this,"  said  the  Saviour,  "  m  remembrance 
of  me :"  and,  "  as  oft  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this 
cup,  ye  do  show  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come."  The  ob- 
servance of  the  institution  is  to  be  continued  in  tlie  church 
until  the  .second  advent  of  Messiah,  and  it  is  to  be  invaria- 

103 


104  TERMS    OP    COMMUNION. 

bly  administered  and  received  for  these  purposes,  and  for  no 
oilier.  In  its  participation,  we  profess  our  faith  in  tlie  elli- 
cacy  and  vicariousness  of  the  atonement  of  the  Son  of  God, 
and  declare  our  belief  of  a  personal  luid  saving  interest  in  its 
benefits,  'i'he  broken  body  and  slied  blood  of  our  Lord, 
which  characterized  his 'sufferings  and  death,  are  thus  con- 
tinually held  up  to  our  view,  and  exhibited  before  the  eyes 
of  the  world,  forming  a  memorial  of  his  grace,  and  to  per- 
petuate our  gratitude  and  love  to  him,  more  indestructible 
than  monumental  brass.  If  in  these  opinions  we  are  not 
mistaken,  the  true  inquiries  to  be  made  in  relation  to  a  can- 
didate for  the  eucharist  are  not  so  properly,  is  he  a  Christian, 
and  am  I  required  by  this  means  to  express  towards  him  my 
confidence  and  brotherly  love  ?  Much  less  may  we  ponder 
the  questions,  can  I  by  receiving  him  advance  my  own,  or 
the  interests  of  religion,  and  can  I  secure  a  greater  degree  of 
popularity  for  a  favorite  doctrine,  or  specified  system  of  the- 
ology ?  But,  does  he  come  according  to  the  laws  of  Christ  ? 
Has  he  not,  since  his  baptism,  forfeited,  by  immorality  or 
heresy,  his  Christian  character  ?  Does  he  propose  to  re- 
ceive the  eucharist  with  the  views  and  purposes  authorized 
by  the  word  of  God  ?  These  are  the  legitimate  inquiries. 
If  they  are  answered  in  the  afHrmative,  the  applicant  m-ust 
be  admitted.  If  otherwise,  it  is  at  our  peril  that  he  is  re- 
ceived. Mistakes  upon  this  point  lead  to  errors  that  dete- 
riorate religion,  perplex  Christians,  and  agitate  and  divide 
those  who  ought  to  be  united.  Were  this  part  of  our  sub- 
ject studied  and  understood,  we  should  never  again  be  told 
that  if  we  decide  that  our  Pedobaptist  brethren,  or  any  others, 
are  Christians,  that  God  has  received  them  into  his  favor, 
we  dare  not  debar  them,  and  we  phould  no  more  be  ivarned 
tliat  the  Malliholding  this  test  of  our  confidence  and  regard, 
is  a  deniaJ  of  their  claims   to  tlie  chai'acter  of  Christians. 


NOT    A    TEST    OF    CHRISTIAN    LOVE.  105 

Such  a  view  of  llie  matter  can  find  no  support  in  divine 
revelation. 

The  Lord's  supper"^  was  not  appointed  to  be  so  much  a 
test  of  our  love  and  confidence  in  each  other,  as  of  our  obe- 
dience to  Clirist.  As  it  is  a  sacred  feast,  and  an  ordinance 
of  divine  worship,  mutual  Christian  affection  among  com- 
municants at  the  same  table  is  very  becoming,  and  highly- 
necessary  ;  but  not  more  so  than  in  any  other  branch  of 
social  worship.  That  sittmg  down  witli  them  at  the  Lord's 
talkie,  however,  should  be  considered  as  the  criterion  of  our 
love  to  individuals,  or  to  any  Christian  community,  does  not 
appear  from  the  word  of  God.  The  supper  of  our  Lord  was 
intended  to  teach  the  most  wonderful  of  all  truths,  and  to  ex- 
hibit llie  most  glorious  of  all  transactions.  It  is  a  memorial 
of  God's  love  to  us,  and  of  Lnmanuel's  death  for  us,  in  me- 
mory of  M'liom  it  is  received.  But  the  proof,  the  scriptural 
proof,  of  love  to  the  children  of  God,  is  not  given  at  so  clieap 
and  easy  a  rate.  Many  do  this  who  give  indubitable  evi- 
dence that  they  do  not  love  the  disciples  for  the  ti'uth's  sake. 
The  presence  in  our  hearts  of  heavenly  affections  requires  to 
be  sustained  by  better  testimony.  Christian  love  involves 
the  exercise  of  tempers,  and  the  performance  of  actions,  which 
em.brace  much  of  self-denial,  and  without  which,  no  matter 
how  promiscuous  may  be  our  communion,  or  how  loudly 
we  may  talk  of  a  liberal  spirit,  we  shall  remain  destitute  of 
that  charity,  without  which  we  are  nothing.  The  true  test 
of  mutual  affection  and  confidence  as  Christians,  is  not 
found  in  a  joint  participation  of  the  eucharist,  but  m  sym- 
pathy with  each  other  in  affliction,  in  feeding  the  hungry,  in 
clothing  the  naked,  and  in  doing  for  the  suffering  and  misera- 
ble of  aU  classes,  but  especially  of  the  household  of  faith, 
whatever  good  their  necessities  may  require.    For  these  facts 

*  See  Booth's  Vindication, 


106  TERMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

I  have  tlie  authority  of  the  final  Judge,  who,  in  the  last  day, 
wiJl  say  to  his  people,  "Come,  ye  blessed  of  my  Fatlier, 
inherit  the  kingdom  prepared  for  you  from  the  foundation  of 
tlie  world."  But  what  are  the  claims  on  account  of  which 
you  receive  so  unspeakable  a  boon  ?  It  is  because  you  have 
manifested  your  love  to  the  saints  by  holding  free  communion 
at  the  Lord's  taiDle  with  Christians  of  all  denominations  ?  Such 
an  intimation  nowhere  exists.  This  is  too  small  and  easy  a 
matter.  The  reasons  are  altogether  of  a  different  character. 
"  I  was  an  hungered,"  said  our  Lord,  "  and  ye  gave  me  meat ; 
I  was  thirsty,  and  ye  gave  me  drink  ;  a  stranger,  and  ye  took 
me  in  ;  naked,  and  ye  clothed  me  ;  I  was  sick,  and  ye  visited 
me  ;  I  was  in  prison,  and  ye  came  unto  me."  If  the  inquiry 
is  made,  how  all  these  things  could  have  taken  place,  the  reply 
of  the  Redeemer  is,  "  For  as  much  as  ye  did  it  unto  one  of 
these,  my  brethren,  ye  did  unto  me."  The  Lord's  supper 
was  not  designed,  therefore,  to  be  a  test  of  Christian  love.  For 
such  a  purpose  it  is  incapacitated  and  inadequate. 

What,  however,  it  is  asked,  if  the  candidate  for  our  com- 
munion be  truly  a  man  of  God,  for  whose  Christian  experi- 
ence we  have  entire  fellowship,  and  he  sincerely  believes 
himself  to  be  baptized  ?  It  is  maintained  that,  in  such  a  case, 
we  ought  to  give  him  this  evidence  of  our  respect  for  the  sin- 
cerity of  his  faith,  and  that  as  a  genuine  disciple  of  Christ,  we 
dare  not  debar  his  approach  to  the  holy  table. 

Were  these,  then,  let  me  inquire,  the  objects  for  which 
the  sacrament  was  instituted  ?  Are  we  at  liberty  to  admi- 
nister, or  receive  it,  for  such  purposes  ?  But  the  proposition 
divides  itself  into  two  parts.    We  will  notice  each  separately. 

The  former  assumes  that  as  the  Pedobaptist  sincerely,  iv 
such  a  thing  be  possible,  believes  himself  baptized,  he  is  to 
be  received  by  us  as  baptized.  But  still  the  question  occurs, 
is  he  baptized  ?     With  whom  is  the  decision  of  this  matter 


PEDOnAPTISTS    ARE    CHRISTIANS.  107 

to  be  lodged?  If  ive  are  to  judge,  he  will  inevitably  be  re- 
jected, because  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  believe  any  such 
fallacy.  If  tlie  candidate  is  the  sole  arbiter  in  the  case,  then 
we  adopt  a  rule  the  operation  of  which  cannot  be  confined  to 
baptism.  It  irresistibly  extends  itself  to  all  matters  both  of 
faith  and  practice.  To  what  results  will  such  an  interpreta- 
tion lead  us  ?  It  forces  us  into  the  dogma  adopted  only  by 
sliallow  minds,  which  constitutes,  to  the  Popish  denial  of  the 
right  of  pri\'ate  judgment,  the  opposite  extreme,  and  which 
meets  and  harmonizes  with  it  in  absurdity,  that  if  a  man  sin- 
cerely thinks  a  thing  is  right,  to  him  it  is  right.  This  doc- 
trine, aU  must  mslantly  perceive,  dethrones  the  Bible,  exalts 
sincerity  in  its  place,  and  at  once  breaks  down  all  distinc- 
tions between  truth  and  eiTor.  A  man's  principles  are  of  no 
consequence.  V/e  dare  not  in  any  case  inquire  into  them. 
All  we  have  to  do  is  to  determine  whether  he  sincerely 
believes  they  are  scriptural.  If  so,  he  is  entitled  to  all  the 
privileges  and  immunities  of  the  church.  Such  extravagant 
vagaries  cannot  need  from  me  a  serious  refutation. 

The  latter  takes  it  for  granted,  that,  as  this  is  the  Lord's 
table,  and  these  are  the  Lord's  children,  they  are  entitled  to 
it,  and  we  dare  not  debar  them.  This  is  a  claim  of  grave 
importance.     Let  us  carefully  consider  it. 

Yes,  it  is  the  Lord's  table.  All  his  children  have  an  un- 
doubted right  to  it,  because  whatever  is  his,  is  theirs.  We 
are  not  permitted  to  preclude  them.  We  make  no  such 
pretensions.  But  has  the  Lord  established  no  laws  for  the 
government  of  the  feast  ?  If  it  should  appear  that  he  has 
not,  we  will  admit  of  none.  Were  it  our  taljle,  we  would 
invite  all  our  friends,  and  rejoice  in  their  society.  It  is  not 
ours ;  it  is  the  Lord's  table.  All  confess  too,  that  he  has 
enacted  laws  for  its  government,  and  that  they  are  para- 
mount.    What  these  laws  are  we  have  already  been  suiH- 


]03  TF.PMS    OF    COMMI'NIOV. 

cicntly  informrd.  AVe  need  not  repeat  them.  Pedobnptists 
themselves  fully  concur  with  us  in  relation  to  some  of  them. 
Dr.  E.  D.  Grifiin,  the  late  learned  President  of  Williams  Col- 
lege, in  his  well  known  Letter  on  Conmiunion,  embodies  them 
>n  a  small  compass : — "I  agree,"  says  the  erudite  president, 
"  with  the  advocates  of  close  communion,  in  two  points. 
First,  that  baptism  is  the  initiating  ordinance  that  introduces 
us  into  the  visil)le  church ;  and,  secondly,  that  we  ought  not 
to  commune  willi  those  who  are  not  baptized,  and,  of  course, 
not  members  of  the  church,  even  if  we  regard  them  as  Chris- 
tians." We  a^ipeal  to  their  own  principles.  This  is  the 
Lord's  table,  and  we  are  his  children ;  and  do  these  facts 
authorize  us  to  violate  his  laws  ?  Are  we  told  that  the  par- 
tics  sincerely  believe  they  have  complied  with  all  the  required 
rules  ?  But  we  have  seen  that  this  plea  is  insufficient.  Our 
Pedol)aptist  ])rethren  themselves  will  not  act  upon  this  prin- 
ciple, when  it  is  applied  in  the  case  of  a  candidate  for  their 
communion,  and  they  thereby  evince  that  they  do  not  think 
that  it  is  legitimate  to  administer  the  Lord's  supper  as  a  tes- 
timony of  confidence  in  the  gracious  state  of  an  individual,  or 
to  evince  respect  for  the  sincerity  with  which  he  entertains 
the  belief  of  the  correctness  of  his  opinions,  irrespective  of 
their  own  convictions  of  what  is  required  by  the  laws  enacted 
to  govern  the  ordinance. 

To  illustrate  this  remark,  let  us  suppose  a  case.  A  good 
Quaker  all  charitably  suppose  to  be  a  Christian.  As  such 
he  is  entitled  to  the  confidence  and  aflcction  of  all  other 
Christians.  He  is  a  child  of  God,  and  has  a  right  to  all  the 
ordinances  of  the  Gospel.  He,  having,  as  Jie  supposes,  re- 
ceived the  baptism  of  the  IToly  Spirit,  has  complied  with 
that  baptism  which  alone,  he  believes,  is  now  authorized  by 
tlie  New  Testament.  He  sincerely  believes  himself  to  l)e 
baptized.     Tliis  good  Quaker,  wlio  is  a  Christian,  one  of  the 


WE  MUST  PRACTICE  OUR  PRINCIPLES.  109 

liOrd's  children,  whom  God  has  accepted,  and  with  M'liom 
they  expect  to  commune  in  heaven,  presents  himself  at  a 
Pedobaptist  communion  talkie.  Will  they  unite  with  him  in 
the  sacred  ordinance  ?  They  respectfully  decline.  But  why  ? 
His  only  deficiency  is  a  want  of  baptism.  In  whose  estima- 
tion, liowever,  does  this  defect  exist  ?  Certainly  not  in  his 
own.  He  is  rejected.  On  what  account?  Not  because  he 
does  not  sincerely  believe  himself  baptized  ;  but  because  his 
Pedobaptist  brethren  do  not  believe  that  he  is  baptized.  Thus 
it  is  seen  that  they  refuse  to  practice  upon  the  principles  they 
recommend  to  us.  The  piety  of  the  candidate  for  comnui- 
nion,  and  the  evidence  it  affords  that  God  has  accepted  him 
as  one  of  his  children,  the  sincerity  and  conscientiousness 
with  which  he  believes  himself  conformed,  in  every  respect, 
to  the  divine  law,  are  no  longer  in  their  judgment  arguments 
applicable  to  the  case.  If  God  has  some  secret  code  by 
which  he  saves  those  who  habituall)^  violate  his  revealed 
will,  it  is  for  his  own  govermnent,  not  ours.  Pedobaptists 
propose,  in  effect,  that  we  shall  repudiate  God's  written  law, 
and  guide  our  conduct  in  this  matter,  by  what  is  conceived 
to  be  the  law  that  will  influence  the  acceptance  of  sinners  in 
the  last  day.  This  course,  however,  they  design  for  us,  not 
for  themselves.  All  classes  of  Protestant  Pedobaptists,  I 
think,  except,  probably,  the  Episcopalians,  confess  that  we 
are  unquestionably  baptized.  They  can,  therefore,  if  they 
think  us  orthodox  and  orderly,  commune  with  us  without 
any  sacrifice  of  principle.  We  do  not,  we  cannot,  believe 
that  Pedobaptists  are  baptized.  And,  as  they  teach  us,  by 
their  example,  to  act,  not  upon  their  faith,  but  upon  our  own, 
they  thus  nullify  all  their  arguments  against  us,  and  justify 
our  course  in  refusing  them,  for  the  same  reasons  that  they 
decline  communion  with  the  Quaker. 

One  of  three  things  we  are  compelled  to  do.     We  must 
10 


irO  TERMS  OF  COMMUNION. 

violate  the  acknowledged  law  of  Christ  respecliiig  both  the 
qualifications  of  the  candidates  and  objects  of  the  ordinance, 
and  receive  unbaptized  believers  ;  profess  tliat  we  belie\^e  tlie 
sprinkling  they  received  in  infancy  true  and  lawful  baptism ; 
or  we  must  decline  the  communion  of  Pedobaptists.  Which 
shall  we  choose  ?  The  first  would  be  an  act  of  deliberate 
and  known  sin ;  the  second  would  be  the  grossest  hypocrisy; 
we  have,  therefore,  chosen  the  third,  which,  though  it  may 
be  a  painful  alternative,  is  an  act  candidly  expressive  of  our 
faith,  and  of  unwavering  fidelity  to  the  Redeemer. 

The  hypothesis  is  sometimes  assumed,  that  we  may  admi- 
nister the  Lord's  supper  to  secure  our  own  interests,  the  in- 
terests of  religion,  a  more  ready  acceptance  of  a  favourite 
doctrine,  the  popularity  of  a  specified  system  of  divinity,  or 
that  it  may  be  withheld  as  a  punishment  to  compel  our  breth- 
ren to  embrace  our  opinions,  or  to  abstain  from  the  exercise 
of  their  own.  I  consider  myself  justified  in  this  statement 
•by  the  numerous  acts  of  nonfellowship  with  which  the  pro- 
ceedings of  our  churches  and  associations  in  this  country 
abound,  and  such  passages  as  I  will  now  quote  from  the 
works  of  Rev.  Robert  Hall.  He  remarks  on  this  sul)ject — 
"  The  first  effect  necessarily  resulting  from  strict  communion 
is  a  powerful  prejudice  against  the  party  which  adopts  it 
When  all  oth(?r  denominations  find  themselves  lying  under 
an  interdict,  and  treated  as  though  they  were  heathens  or 
pulilicans,  they  must  be  more  than  men  not  to  resent  it;  or 
if  they  regard  it  with  a  considerable  degree  of  apatliy,  it  can 
only  be  ascribed  to  that  contempt  wliich  impotent  violence 
is  so  apt  to  inspire."-^  The  same  writer  discusses  the  expe- 
diency and  effect  of  "  close  communion  considered  as  a  pun- 
ishment :"  as  the  means  of  bringinnf  a  larger  number  within 
tlie  circle  of  our  inffuence ;  and  of  inducing  men  favorably 

*  Works,  vol.ii.  p.  226. 


INTEREST  OF  TRUTH  CONSULTED.  Ill 

to  consider,  and  to  submit  to,  the  ordinance  of  baptism.*  He 
observes — "  Tlie  hope  of  producing  conviction  by  such  aii 
expedient  is  equally  groundless  and  chimerical,  since  convic- 
tion is  the  result  of  evidence,  and  no  light  whatever  can  be 
pretended  to  be  conveyed  by  interdicting  their  communion, 
unless  it  be  that  it  manifests  our  intolerance.  We  propose 
to  extirpate  an  error,  and  we  plant  a  prejudice ;  and  instead 
of  attempting  to  soften  and  conciliate  the  minds  of  our  oppo- 
nents, we  inflict  a  stigma.  Professing  serious  concern  that 
the  ordinance  of  baptism,  as  it  was  practised  in  the  first  ages, 
is  fallrn  into  neglect,  we  attempt  to  revive  an  unpopular  rite 
by  a  mode  of  procedure  which,  without  the  remotest  ten- 
dency towards  the  removal  of  error,  or  the  elucidation  of 
trudi,  answers  no  other  purpose  than  to  make  ourselves  un- 
popular."t 

If  these  arguments  are  used  in  seriousness,  and  I  imagine 
we  must  so  regard  them,  they  certainly  assume  that  the 
eucharist  may  be  administered,  not  only,  in  commemoration 
©f  the  death  and  sufferings  of  our  Lord,  and  as  a  testunony 
of  our  united  love  and  obedience  to  him,  purposes  alone 
sanctioned  by  the  holy  word,  but  also,  to  evince  our  libe- 
rality, to  inflict  punishment,  to  bring  a  larger  number  of  per- 
sons under  our  influence,  to  produce  conviction  in  favor  of 
the  correctness  of  our  opinions,  to  extirpate  error,  to  soften 
and  conciliate  our  opponents,  to  revive  the  neglected  use  of 
baptism,  in  any  way,  and  for  almost  any  purpose,  so  as  to 
avoid  making  ourselves  unpopular  !  Need  I  say  a  single 
word  to  expose  the  fallacious  character  of  such  opinions  as 
these?  It  is  matter  of  no  surprise  that  a  man  so  great  as 
Mr.  Hall,  M-ith  principles  so  loose  and  contradictory,  should 
have  been,  at  once,  the  glory  and  the  shame,  the  boast  and 

*  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  337,  et  seq. 
t  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  227. 


112  TERMS  OF  COMMUNION. 

tlie  blight  ol'  the  Baptist  church.  The  ophiion  prevails  pretty 
extensively,  in  some  quarters,  that  the  Lord's  supper  is  de- 
signed to  be  a  pledge  of  Christian  fellowship.  I  have  already 
alluded  briefly  to  a  collateral  topic,  the  question  whether  it  is 
a  test  of  Christian  love,  and,  incidentally,  to  the  view  of  the 
subject  now  introduced.  It,  however,  in  my  judgment,  de- 
mands a  somewhat  more  extensive  consideration.  The  New 
'JV.'Siament  must  necessarily  guide  us  in  all  our  deductions, 
but  neither  in  the  Gospels,  nor  in  the  Epistles,*  is  there  the 
least  intimation  that  any  such  purpose  was  contemplated,  nor 
is  there  any  thing  in  the  nature  of  the  ordinance  indicating 
that  it  should  be  so  regarded.  The  true  test  of  either  indi- 
vidual or  social  Christian  fellowship  must  be  sought  in  some- 
thing else  besides  sacramental  intercourse.  Nothhig  can  be 
plainer  than  the  exposition  on  this  subject  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles.  We  are  taught  by  them  in  the  language  already 
quoted,  that  the  solemn  and  expressive  use  of  the  bread  and 
the  cup,  with  the  forms  of  devotional  exercise,  is  a  symbol 
of  his  mangled  body  and  shed  blood,  and  of  our  spiritual  in- 
terests in  the  great  sacrifice  thus  offered.  No  evidence  exists 
which  warrants  the  conclusion  that  this  sacrament  is  to  be 
employed  for  any  other  purpose.  Union  and  fellowship 
among  Christians,  it  is  true,  are  indispensable  to  church 
membership.  For  "  how  can  two  walk  together  except  they 
be  agreed?"  These,  however,  are  secured  by  the  previous 
measures  which  connected  them  with  the  people  of  God  in 
their  ecclesiastical  relations.  In  the  act  of  the  Lord's  supper 
we  are  not  to  busy  ourselves  in  scrutinizing  those  avIio  are 
present,  to  determine  whether  we  have  fellowship  with  all 
who  propoi5e  to  participate.  These  solemn  moments  should 
be  occupied  in  endeavours  to  direct  our  minds  to  Christ,  and 

*  Vide  an  Essay,  by  Rev.  John  M.  Peck,  of  Rock  Spring,  III.  in  the 
Banner  and  Pioneer,  1S40. 


NOT  A  PLEDGE  OF  CHRISTIAN  FELLOWSHIP.  113 

to  realize  out  "  fellowship  with  the  Father,  and  with  his  Son, 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord."  If  the  communicants  come  accord- 
ing to  the  laws  Jesus  Christ  has  established  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  feast,  and  retain  their  places  in  the  membership 
of  his  church,  our  private  opinion  of  them  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  perfoiTnance  of  our  duty. 

If  in  these  conclusions  we  are  correct,  it  is  apparent  that 
several  occasions  of  reproach  from  others,  and  difficulty 
among  ourselves,  are  entirely  obviated.  We  are  not  unfre- 
quendy  told  by  unbaptized  Christians — Christ  communes 
with  us,  but  you  will  not — You  expect  to  commune  widi 
us  in  heaven,  but  you  will  not  do  it  on  earth !  But  a  mo- 
ment's thought,  however,  is  necessary  to  show  that  all  tliis, 
and  m.uch  more  of  the  same  character,  is  the  merest  verl^al 
nonsense.  Do  they  mean  to  say  that  Jesus  Christ  comes 
literally  to  their  table,  and  actually  eats  bread  and  drinks  wine 
with  them,  when  they  celebrate  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
supper  ?  They  do  not,  surely,  intend  to  convey  such  an 
idea.  How,  then,  does  he  commune  with  them  on  earth  ? 
By  sympathy  with  them,  by  bestowing  his  favor  upon  them, 
and  by  tlie  blessings  of  his  holy  Spirit.  Precisely  the  same 
kind  of  communion,  as  far  as  we  are  capable,  we  are  willirig 
to  hold  with  them,  and  do  hold  with  them  all — not  sacra- 
mental, but  Christian  communion.  When,  therefore,  it  is 
alleged  that  Christ  communes  with  them,  and  that  we  will 
not,  the  statement  is  not  entitled  to  the  regard  which  is  due 
to  truth,  smce  it  is  evident  that,  in  all  these  respects,  we 
commune  with  them  to  the  full  extent  of  their  communion 
witli  Christ.  The  other  postulate  in  the  argument  is  of  the 
same  sophistical  character,  and  appears  to  have  weight  merely 
by  a  deceptive  play  upon  the  word  communion,  which  is 
assumed  in  one  sense  in  the  premises,  and  applied  in  anoilier 
sense  in  the  conclusion.  We  shall  commune  together,  say 
10* 


114  TEUMS    OF    COMMUNION. 

tlioy,  in  heaven.  AVhy  not,  therefore,  commune  togetho  ^l> 
eartli  ?  Is  it  true,  that  we  shall  actually  sit  down  at  Jia 
communion  table  in  heaven,  and  literally  eat  bread  and  (i./mk 
wine  in  a  sacramental  sense  ?  No  one,  I  imagine,  supposes 
that  such  will  be  the  case.  If  not,  should  we  happily  reach 
that  "better  land,"  our  communion  will  be  wholly  spiritual. 
We  shall,  therefore,  assuredly,  never  commune  with  Pedo- 
baptists  in  any  manner  in  heaven,  in  which  we  do  not  now 
commune  with  them  on  earth.  The  charge,  so  frequently 
preferred,  that,  by  refusing  their  communion,  we  declare 
nonfellowship  with  them,  and  deny  their  title  to  the  Chris- 
tian character,  is,  as  every  one  will  readily  perceive,  based 
upon  tlie  mistaken  notion,  the  exploded  dogma,  that  the 
Lord's  supper  is  designed  as  a  test  of  Christian  fellowship, 
and  that  one  purpose,  at  least,  of  its  administration  is  to  ex- 
press mutual  religious  affection.  AU  such  reasoning  as  this, 
is  indicative  of  singular  obscurity  of  thought,  and  proceeds 
upon  the  deception  which  narrows  the  vast  field  of  Christian 
communion  to  the  limits  of  sacramental  intercourse,  a  concep- 
tion equally  at  war  with  philological  accuracy,  and  religious 
truth.  And  what  is  even  more  melancholy,  the  declamations 
founded  upon  it,  and  they  are  in  some  parts  of  our  land  ex- 
ceedingly exuberant,  partake  of  the  same  attributes.  They 
are  passionate  appeals,  not  to  enlightened  and  scriptural  views 
of  the  design  of  the  ordinance,  but  to  the  strong  prejudices 
and  coarser  feelings  of  the  human  heart,  emotions  so  easily 
aroused,  and  so  mischievous  in  their  influence  upon  all  tlie 
interests  of  rehgion,  and  the  courtesies  of  brotherly  love. 

The  testimony  now  submitted,  in  proof  that  sacramental 
intercourse  at  the  Lord's  table  is  not  designed  as  a  test  of 
Christian  fellowship,  and  that  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  ad- 
minister the  eucharist  for  such  a  purpose,  if  regarded  as  con- 
clusive, will  also  serve  to  remove  another  perplexity,  often 


NOT  A  PLEDGE  OF  CHRISTIAN  FELLOWSHIP.  115 

found  to  exist  in  our  own  churches.  Not  unfrequently  does 
a  member  absent  himself  from  the  Lord's  table  on  account 
of  the  presence  of  some  other  member  who  has  offended 
him.  He  will  not  take  his  seat  there,  because  he  imagines 
that  by  doing  so  he  will  express  a  fellowship  that  does  not 
really  exist ;  and  he  chooses  not  to  falsify  by  his  act,  the  true 
convictions  of  his  heart.  Entire  churches,  similarly  judging, 
sometimes  suspend  wholly  the  observance  of  this  ordinance, 
for  indefinite  periods,  on  account  of  internal  disagreement, 
guided  by  the  unscriptural  impressions  we  are  now  attempt- 
ing to  remove.  Offences,  and  consequent  unholy  feelings, 
cannot  always  be  avoided.  They  wdl,  sometimes,  find  their 
way  among  the  people  of  God.  Every  proper  effort  should 
be  made  to  prevent  them,  and  when  tliey  occur,  to  suppress 
them,  with  the  least  possible  delay.  If,  however,  they  are 
found  to  have  place,  they  afford  no  more  reason  for  a  sus- 
pension of  the  regular  commemoration  of  the  Lord's  supper 
than  of  baptism,  preaching,  singing,  prayer,  or  any  other  de- 
partment of  rehgious  worship,  all  of  which  are  no  less  foniis 
of  communion  than  the  sacrament  in  question,  and  a  united 
participation  in  them,  equally  expressive  of  Christian  fel- 
lowship. 

The  conclusions  to  which  we  have  been  conducted  will 
enable  us  properly  to  estimate  the  acts  of  our  churches  and 
associations,  to  which  we  have  alluded,  and  by  which  they 
have  employed  the  Lord's  supper,  not  only  as  an  expression 
of  Christian  fellowship,  but  also  as  an  engine  for  the  inflic- 
tion of  punishment.  Movements  such  as  these  last  by  the 
Roman  See  do  not  surprise  us,  nor  when  even  Protestants 
resort  to  them,  are  we  much  astonished,  because,  in  other 
respects,  they  symbolize  with  Popery.  But  that  Baptists, 
who  profess  to  be  guided,  in  all  things,  by  the  word  of  God, 
are  not  more  uilclligent  and  consistent,  is  matter  of  equal 


116  TEKMS    OF    COxMxMUNION. 

grief  and  aiiiazcinent.  The  propensity  to  imitate  others  is 
one  of  the  most  prominent  traits  in  the  human  character,  nor 
has  it  failed  to  dovelope  itself  in  this  particular,  as  the  nume- 
rous proceedings,  in  all  parts  of  our  land,  abundantly  testify. 
Every  Baptist  church,  by  the  very  articles  of  its  constitu- 
tion, is  declared  to  be  perfectly  independent  of  every  other, 
obliged  to  be  governed  by  no  standard  but  the  word  of  God, 
and  responsible  only  to  her  celestial  Head  for  her  faith  and 
practice.  Yet  one  church  is  found  nonfellowshiping,  or 
excommunicating  anotlier;  and  the  churches  in  one  region 
exscinding  those  in  another  region !  Could  such  wounds  as 
these  be  inflicted  upon  the  body  of  Christ,  did  just  concep- 
tions prevail  of  the  design  for  which  the  Lord's  supper  was 
instituted?  What,  under  existing  circumstances,  can  be 
gained  by  these  proceedings  ?  Nothing  whatever,  but  the 
publication  of  our  own  errors  and  inconsistency,  the  exhibi- 
tion of  our  intolerance,  and  the  proof  that  Christian  charity 
has  not  yet  assumed  the  entire  control  of  our  hearts. 

Having  now  seen  that  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  administer 
or  receive  the  Lord's  supper  for  any  purposes  other  than 
those  designated  by  the  great  Lawgiver;  determined  what 
those  purposes  are ;  noted  the  errors  that  prevail  on  this  sub- 
ject ;  and  considered  some  of  the  evils,  both  among  ourselves 
and  others,  which  have  been  the  consequences  ;  it  is  unne- 
cessar}^,  probably,  further  to  extend  our  discussions.  I  repeat 
tlie  important  truth  that,  like  every  other  department  of  the 
divine  service,  communion  has  its  laws  by  which  it  must  in 
all  respects  be  governed.  To  violate  them  in  its  observance, 
is  a  contempt  of  the  authority  from  which  they  emanated, 
and  in  consequence  of  such  dereliction,  where  it  exists,  this 
part  of  sacred  devotion,  and  it  would  be  true  of  any  other 
under  similar  circumstances,  ceases,  at  once,  to  be  an  act  of 
either  faith,  obedience,  or  worship.    "  There  can  be  no  faitli, 


CONCLlJSIOiNS.  117 

because  that  requires  a  promise,  or  some  divine  declaration  ; 
tliere  can  be  no  obedience,  because  that  supposes  a  prece])ti 
or  something  equivalent  to  it;  and  where  there  is  no  faith' 
nor  obedience,  it  is  evident,  tliere  can  be  no  acceptable' 
worship." 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

WE  CANXOT  UNITE  WITH  PEDOBAPTISTS  IN  SACR\MF,NTAL 
C03IMUNI0N  WITHOUT  AN  ACTUAL  ABANDONMENT,  OR 
PRACTICAL  FALSIFICATION  OF  ALL  OUR  PRINCIPLES  ON 
BOTH  BAPTISM  AND  THE  LORd's  SUPPER. 

Forced  confessions — Anabaptism — Changs  of  public  feeling  in  regard 
to  us — Former  persecutions — Parliament  of  Charles  I, — Assembly  of 
divines  at  Westminster — Henry  VIII. — Episcopal  Convocation — Con- 
sequences— Queen  Elizabeth  and  the  Aldgate  Church — Burning  of 
Baptist  women — American  persecutions — Danger  of  popularity — In- 
fluence of  open  communion. 

Preparatory  to  entering  upon  a  more  full  and  explicit 
exposition  of  the  reasons  why  Baptists  cannot  unite  with 
Pedobaplists  in  Sacramental  Communion,  let  us  briefly  re- 
capitulate the  topics  which  have  passed  in  review,  and  to 
which  our  conclusions  must  have  immct^iate  reference.  We 
have  seen,  in  the  preceding  chapters,  that  we  are  not  at  liberty 
to  adopt  any  terms  of  communion  not  instituted  and  estab- 
lished by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  we  have  specified  the  terms 
which  are  prescribed  by  him,  and  shown  them  to  be  such ; 
the  extent  to  which  the  opinions  entertained  by  us  on  this 
subject  have  been,  and  are,  substantially,  embraced  by  all 
other  denominations  ;  we  have  replied  at  large  to  the  argu- 
ments by  which  our  conclusions  are  impugned,  employed 
particularly  by  open  communion  Baptists,  and  generally  by 
Pedobaptists  ;  and  we  have  shown  that  we  have  no  authority 
to  administer,  or  to  receive  the  Lord's  supper,  for  any  other 
purposes  than  those  designated  by  the  Christian  Legislator. 
If  we  have  thus  far  comprehended  the  subject  in  all  its  rela- 
118 


ABANDONMENT  OF  PRlNCiri-E.  110 

tions  and  liearings,  it  ^vill  not  be  difllciilt  for  us  to  specify 
satisfactorily  the  particular  reasons  why  m'C  decline  commu- 
nion with  Pedobaptists.     We  proceed  to  this  part  of  our 

task. 

Three  prominent  considerations  influence  our  condfict,  into 
which  all  tliose  of  a  suljordinate  character  may  be  resolved. 
The  first  is,  that  we  cannot  mingle  with  them  in  sacramental 
intercourse  without  an  actual  abandonment,  or  practical  falsi- 
fication of  all  our  principles  on  both  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
supper  ;  the  second  is,  because  Pedobaptists  are  not  baptized ; 
and  the  third  is,  because  they  attach  to  both  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  supper  an  unscriptural  and  unreasonable  degree  of 
efllcacy  and  importance,  and  therefore  administer  them  for 
purposes  not  authorized  by  the  word  of  God.  The  exami- 
nation of  the  first  of  these  reasons  for  strict  communion  will 
occupy  the  present  chapter. 

When  we  receive  the  Lord's  supper  with  Pedobaptists,  we 
either  actually  abandon,  or  practically  falsify  all  our  principles 
in  relation  to  the  sacraments  of  the  Gospel.  These  conse- 
quences, one  or  the  other,  cannot  be  avoided.  Do  our  bre- 
thren of  the  several  churches  designated  desire  us  to  commune 
with  them  without  such  an  understanding,  tacit  or  avowed? 
I  cannot  persuade  myself  that  they  do.  Any  other  hypo- 
thesis would  not  express  respect  for  their  candor.  We  should 
violate  equally  our  own  tenets  and  theirs,  and  thus  adopt  a  fonn 
of  liberality  which  could  in  no  wise  increase  their  estimation 
for  us,  either  as  intelligent  men  or  ^conscientious  Christians. 
Dr.  Worcester,  a  distinguished  Pedobaptist  of  the  present 
century,  in  his  Letters  to  Dr.  Baldwin,  expresses  on  this  sub- 
ject the  unanimous  sense  of  al]  his  brethren.  He  remarks  : 
"  If  professed  believers  are  the  only  proper  subjects  for  bap- 
tism, and  if  inmiersion  be  not  a  mere  circumstance  or  mode  of 
baptism,  but  essential  to  the  ordinance,  so  that  he  that  is  not 


120  REASONS    FOR    STRICT    COMMUNION. 

immersed  is  not  baptized,  the  sentiments  of  strict  communion 
would  be  sufficiendy  established."  Both  these,  they  all  know, 
we  unwaveringly  believe.  Tiiey  maintain,  as  will  be  perceiv- 
ed, that  if  they  held  as  we  do  in  relation  to  baptism,  they 
would  practice  as  we  do  in  relation  to  tlie  Lord's  supper. 
Now,  is  it  possible  they  can  wish  us  to  admit  them  to  com- 
munion with  us,  or  desire  us  to  sit  down  Avith  them,  without 
acknowledging  the  validity  of  their  baptism  ?  The  supposition 
is  unreasonable.  I  will  not  do  them  the  injustice  to  presume 
they  would  tolerate  such  a  course,  because  they  are  fully  as- 
sured thai  in  adopting  it,  we  must  either  violate  tlieir  prin- 
ciples as  well  as  our  own,  or  incur,  and  justly,  the  charge  of 
dissimulation,  neither  of  which  are  they  likely  to  regard  as 
well  befittmg  the  solemn  services  of  the  holy  table.  Read  all 
their  books  on  this  subject,  and  the  conviction  cannot  be  re- 
sisted that  they  esteem  our  communion  with  them  as  worth 
nothing  except  as  an  acknowledgment  of  their  baptism,  or  a 
renunciation  of  our  own — an  humble  confession  that,  after  all, 
we  are  wrong  and  they  are  right.  Who  does  not  see  that  all 
who  do  this,  actually  renounce  their  own  principles  as  Bap- 
tists, or  practically  falsify  and  dishonor  them  ?  Why,  then, 
should  any  one  claim  to  be  still  considered  as  a  Baptist,  when 
the  mere  profession  is  all  he  retains,  and  even  this  is  contra- 
dicted and  disproved  by  his  whole  life  and  conduct  ? 

Were  I,  as  a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  go  to  the  Pedo- 
baptist  communion  table,  without  hypocrisy,  and  in  the  exer- 
cise of  a  good  conscience,  I  should,  in  that  act,  acknowledge, 
as  we  all  agree  that  baptism  is  an  indispensable  preliminary  to 
communion,  that  those  who  suiTOund  me,  and  who  haA'B  only 
been  sprinkled  in  infancy,  have,  in  that  ceremony,  been  truly 
baptized.  I  must,  tlierefore,  from  that  moment,  cither  refuse 
to  baptize  such  when  they  become  believers,  or  if  not,  confess 
myself  guilty  of  rebaptizing  them.  Thus  I  should  become  most 


CONFESSION    OF    ANABAPTISM.  121 

certiinly  what  I  have  ever  disowned  with  abhorrence,  an  ana- 
baptist, or  re-baptizcr.  But  I  never  did,  I  never  shall,  know- 
ingly, baptize  any  person  who  had  been  previously  baptized. 
I  will  therefore  never  lake  a  position  whicli  will  force  me  to 
confess  that  I  have  done  so,  or  that,  in  other  respects,  will 
embarrass  my  obedience  to  any  command  of  the  divine  law. 
That  we  do  not  materially  err  in  the  view  of  the  su]:!Ject 
now  submitted,  I  feel  the  utmost  confidence.  What,  then,  I 
ask,  are  we  to  think  of  all  the  railing  and  clamor  in  regard 
to  it  with  which  our  ears  are  perpetually  stunned  ?  It  is,  be- 
yond question,  a  mere  ''coup  de  main'' — a  stroke  of  policy, 
either  to  roll  upon  us  such  a  tide  of  public  ol^loquy  as  will 
overwhelm  us  by  its  force — a  most  brodierly  and  affectionate 
act — or  to  drive  us  from  our  principles,  and  by  involving  us  in 
fatal  contradictions,  to  break  down  our  doctrines  and  destroy 
our  churches.  Do  we  need  stronger  testimony  to  evince  that 
the  2inilleij  professedly  leveled  against  the  restrictive  feature 
in  our  sacramental  communion,  is  in  reality  designed  to  act 
against  our  mode  and  sulijects  of  baptism  ?  It  cannot  be  con- 
ccided  that  the  plain  propriety  and  scriptural  character  of  both 
of  these  is  a  perpetual  rebuke,  which  they  constantly  feel,  and 
from  which,  in  this  indirect  and  more  popular  way,  they  are 
evidently  striving  to  be  delivered.  When  translated  into  in- 
telligible English,  it  all  amounts  to  about  this  : — You  Baptists 
are  beyond  measure  stubborn  and  unaccommodating.  Do 
acknowledge  our  infant  sprinkling  to  be  true  and  lawful  bap- 
tism. When  you  baptize  a  person  who  has  been  sprmkled 
by  us  in  infancy,  admit  that  you  re-baptize  him.  You  can 
now  make  all  these  concessions  in  the  easiest,  in  the  most 
affectionate,  kind  and  agreeable  manner  imaginable.  Just  sit 
down  with  us,  or  invite  us  to  sit  down  with  you,  at  the  Lord's 
table.  That  will  be  amply  sufficient.  Come,  now,  we  love 
you  as  Christians,  and  tlie  alfection  and  confidence  are  mutual. 

11 


122  REASONS    FOR    STRICT    COMMUNION. 

Jesiis  Christ  communes  willi  us,  and  we  slrall  all  commune 
together  in  heaven.  Why  not  upon  earth  ?  You  will  not — we 
have  determined  to  give  it  such  a  direction  that  public  opinion 
will  not  permit  you  to  decline  our  solicitation.  Thus  you 
will  accomplish  all  we  desire. 

To  those  who  are  fluniliar  with  the  history  of  the  Church, 
tliis  condition  of  things  cannot  but  appear  in  singular  contrast 
with  the  tone  and  bearing  formerly  maintained  towards  us. 
Different,  however,  as  it  may  seem,  it  is  nevertheless,  dictated 
by  precisely  the  same  spirit.  Not  two  centuries  have  elapsed 
since  Baptists  and  Roman  Catholics  were  denounced  by  the 
Protestant  world  as  equally  abominal^le.  If  there  was,  in 
their  estimation,  au}^  dillerence,  the  Baptists  were  regarded 
with  the  greater  abhorrence.  In  proof  of  this  remark,  I  refer 
to  Dr.  Wall,'^  who  observes  :  "  When  the  Protestants  arose, 
the  Papists,  in  scorn,  called  them  Anabaptists,!  but  the  Pro- 
testants disowned  'em,  and  wrote  agamst  'em.  And  Sleidan 
gives  several  instances  wherein  Protestant  princes  and  states 
declared  aojainst  harborins^  'em  ;  and  made  answer  to  the  re- 
proaches  of  the  Papists,  that  they  took  more  care  to  rid  their 
countries  of  'em  than  they  themselves  did."  The  Assembly 
of  Divines  at  Westminster  was  held  during  the  Protectorate 
of  Cromwell.  From  Dr.  Lightfoot's  Works,j:  we  learn  the 
temper  of  that  body  towards  us.  Woolsey  on  Baptism§ 
says,  "  While  all,  not  Presbyterians,  suffered  on  account  of 
their  sentiments,  the  Baptists  especially  were  made  to  feel  the 
weight  of  their  power.     Often  did  the  Assembly,  during  its 

*  Hist.  Inf.  Bap.  Lond.  ed.  1705,  vol.  ii.  p.  202. 

t  The  Anabaptists  of  that  day  are,  on  all  hands,  confessed  to  be  the 
Baptists  of  our  times.  Does  not  this  fact  prove  that  Baptists  are  older 
than  Protestants  1 

t  Vol.  xiii.  pp.  299,  302. — Journal  of  Proceedings,  &.c.  from  Jan.  1, 
1643,  to  Dec.  31,  1644. 

^  Avptiiifix. 


WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY.  123 

session,  consult  witli  the  House  of  Commons,  how  they 
might  suppress  Baptists,  or,  as  they  were  pleased  to  call 
them,  Anabaptists.  As  strange  as  it  may  appear,  yet  it  is  no 
less  true,  that  the  Assembly  of  Divines  attributed  their  Lord 
General's  defeat  in  the  west  to  '  Parliament  not  being  active 
in  suppressing  Baptists.'  "*  The  record  for  Friday,  August 
the  9th,  is  in  these  Avords  :  "  Then  did  Mr.  Marshall  report 
from  the  committee  chosen  to  study  a  remedy  against  the 
Anabaptists,  Brownists,  &c.  This  business  was  also  ordered 
to  be  sent  to  the  House"  of  Parliament.  When  Charles  H. 
was  restored  to  the  throne  of  England,  all  his  offending  sub- 
jects were  pardoned,  except  such  as  had  committed  the  crime 
of  becoming  Baptists.  Wall  says — "  The  Parliament  assem- 
bled upon  the  restoration,  expressed  the  dislike  the  nation 
had  conceived  against  the  tenets  and  behavior  of  these  men"t 
— Baptists — "  who" — in  the  language  of  Judge  Hale,  "  pre- 
tended so  highly  to  liberty  of  conscience.!  An  act  (was 
passed  at  the  same  time)  for  the  confirming  all  ministers  in 
the  possession  of  their  benefices,  how  heterodox  soever  they 
had  been,  provided  they  would  conform  for  the  future,  except 
such  as  had  been  of  this  way" — had  committed  the  unpar- 
donable crime  of  embracing  Baptist  principles. 

As  I  have  mentioned  these  instances,  and  it  may  not  be 
considered  entirely  irrelevant  to  do  so,  I  will,  at  the  risk  of 
being  thought  somewhat  prolix,  introduce  one  or  two  other 
facts  of  the  same  character.  In  a  speech  of  Henry  YHI., 
made  at  the  proroguing  of  Parliament,  December  24,  1545, 
complainmg  of  the  discord  among  his  subjects  on  religious 
accounts,  he  exclaims — "  What  love  and  charity  is  there 
among  you,  when  one  calls  another  heretic  and  Anabaptist, 

*  Journal  of  the  Assembly,  Sept.  9,  10,  A.  D.  1644. 

t  History  Infant  Baptism,  vol.  ii.  p.  215. 

}  Bm-aet's  Life  and  Death  of  Sir  Mattliew  Hale,  p.  44. 


124  REASONS    FOR    STRICT    COMMUNION. 

and  he  calls  him  a<ram  Papist,  liypocrile,  and  Pharisee  !"* 
A  Convocation  of  the  Episcopal  church  was  held  during  tlie 
same  reigii,  one  specific  o!iject  of  which  was  to  condemn  the 
Baptists  for  maintaining  that  infants  could  be  saved  Vv^ithout 
baptism.  They  set  forth,  for  that  purpose,  several  articles 
"  to  be  diligently  preach'd  for  keeping  the  people  steady," 
among  which  we  notice  the  folio wingt — "That  the  sacra- 
ment of  baptism  was  instituted  and  ordained  in  the  New 
Testament,  by  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  as  a  thing  necessary 
for  attaining  everlasting  hfe,  according  to  the  saying  of  Christ 
— Nisi  quis  renatus  fuerit,  etc. — Unless  one  be  born  again 
of  water,  &c.  2.  That  it  is  ofFer'd  unto  all  men,  as  well 
infants,  as  such  as  have  the  use  of  reason,  that  by  baptism 
they  shall  have  remission  of  sins,  &c.  3.  That  the  pro- 
mise of  grace  and  everlasting  life,  which  promise  is  adjoined 
unto  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  pertaineth  not  only  to  such 
as  have  the  use  of  reason,  but  also  to  infants,  &c. — they  are 
made  thereby  the  very  sons  and  children  of  God.  Insomuch 
as  children  dying  in  their  infancy  shall  undoubtedly  be  saved 
thereby,  otherwise  not.  4.  Infants  must  needs  be  chris- 
ten'd  because  they  are  born  in  original  sin,  which  sin  must 
needs  be  remitted,  Avhich  cannot  be  done  but  by  the  grace 
of  baptism,  whereby  they  receive  the  Holy  Ghost,  which 
exercises  his  grace  and  efficacy  in  them,  and  cleanses  and 
purifies  them  from  sin,  by  his  most  secret  virtue  and  opera- 
tion. 6.  That  they  ought  to  repute  and  take  all  the  Ana- 
baptist's and  Pelagian's  opinions  contrary  to  the  premises, 
and  every  other  man's  opinions  agreeable  unto  the  said 
Anabaptists's  and  Pelagian's  opinions  in  this  behalf,  for 
detestable  heresies,  and  to  be  utterly  condemned."  The 
publication  of  these  articles  was  instantly  attended  with  the 

*  Wall's  Hist.  Inf.  Bap.  vol.  ii.  p.  210. 

t  Fuller's  Church  History,  Lib.  5,  sect.  4.  Wall,  vol.  ii.  p.  20S,  209. 


BURNING  OF  BAPTISTS.  125 

most  appalling  consequences  to  our  oppressed  brethren. 
Wall,  whose  language  in  substance  I  adopt,  affirms  that  it 
was  but  a  short  time  ere  ^^four  Baptists,  diree  men  and  one 
woman,  were  condemned  to  bear  fagots  at  Paul's  Cross, 
and  that  three  days  after  a  man  and  woman  of  their  sect  were 
burnt  at  Smithfield.  Ten  other  Baptists  were,  in  a  few 
weeks  more,  put  to  death ;  and  some  months  subsequently 
fourteen  more  suflered  the  same  fate,  '  for  the  crime  of  de- 
nying,' in  die  language  of  Fuller,  the  historian,  'that  the 
sacraments  had  any  (saving)   effect  on  those  that  received 


em. 


'  "* 


On  all  occasions,  when  a  crowd  of  heretics  were  con- 
demned to  the  stake,  whoever  else  received  clemency,  the 
Baptists  were  sure  to  suffer.  Even  Queen  Elizabeth,  par- 
don whom  she  miglit,  had  little  compassion  for  us.  As  a 
single  instance  among  many,  illustrative  of  the  truth  of  this 
remark,  I  observe  that,  when  the  litde  church  which  had 
been  secredy  collected  at  Aldgate,  London,  was,  by  the  vigi- 
lance of  the  police,  unfortunately  discovered,  the  officers  of 
"  Her  Majesty"  succeeded  in  capturing  twenty-seven  of  its 
unoffending  members.  These  were  all  imprisoned  in  the 
severest  manner,  and  eleven  of  them,  ten  of  whom  were 
women^  were  convicted  of  "  anabaptism,"  and  condemned 
therefore  as  guilty  of  capital  crimes  against  the  peace  and 
dignity  of  the  empire.  Of  these  eight  were  banished  from 
the  country,  and  two  were  burned  at  the  stake  in  Smith- 
field.  Fox,  the  celebrated  Martyrologist,  interceded  with 
Elizabeth  to  save  these  two  victims  from  the  flames,  and  to 
have  their  sentence  commuted  to  banishment,  that  they  might 
go  with  the  others.  The  Queen  replied,  that  she  could  not 
comply  with  his  petition,  because  it  was  necessary  to  make 

*  Hist.  &c.  vol.  ii.  p.  220 ;  and  the  same  incidects  are  narru-ted  ia 
Fuller's  Cli.  Hist.  Lib.  5,  sect,  5.  arid  Ivlartyrolcgy,  ed.  2.  p.  Soo. 
11* 


126  REASONS    FOR    STRICT    COMMUNION. 

examples  of  them ;  and  added :  "  I  wonder  tliat  such  mon- 
strous opmions" — as  those  professed  by  the  Baptists — 
*' could  come  mto  the  mind  of  any  Christian.  But  such  is 
the  state  of  human  weakness,  if  we  are  left  never  so  little  a 
Avhile  destitute  of  the  divine  light,  whither  is  it  that  we  do 
not  fall?"*  Happy  would  it  be  for  the  memory  of  our 
American  Fathers  if  "  the  Statutes  at  Large"  of  Virginia, 
and  the  musty  Legal  Tomes  of  the  staid  Puritans  of  New 
England  contained  the  only  evidence  of  Pedobaptist  intole- 
rance towards  us  even  in  this  country.  Baptist  blood  has 
stained  the  soil  of  the  New  as  well  as  the  Old  world.  But 
I  forbear.     I  have  digressed  too  far. 

Am  I  asked,  w^hether  I  intend  to  charge  the  Pedobaptists 
of  the  present  day,  with  the  guilt  of  all  these  monstrous  and 
sanguinary  proceedings  of  former  ages  ?  I  reply  that  such  a 
thought  is  far,  very  far,  fi'om  my  heart.  Our  brethren  of 
other  denominations  are  now  peculiarly  friendly,  and  affec- 
tionate, but,  I  presume,  not  the  less,  on  that  account,  desirous 
that  we  should  abandon  our  odious  anabaptism.  I  design 
only  to  contrast  the  difference  of  spirit  with  which  in  various 
ages  they  have  approached  us.  In  former  days  of  darkness, 
how  bitterly  would  Protestants  have  scouted  an  invitation  to 
sit  down  with  us  at  the  Lord's  table,  and  had  a  Baptist,  with- 
out a  total  and  public  abandonment  of  his  principles,  have 
dared  to  venture  among  the  crowed  to  their  communion,  they 
would  have  spurned  and  driven  him  hence,  with  the  deepest 
indignation.  We  endured  the  spirit  of  the  storm  while  it 
prevailed  ;  the  tempest  at  last  exhausted  the  rage  of  many  a 
slow  moving  century,  and  we  came  forth  still  brighter,  from 
the  conflict.  A  change  has  come.  Our  brethren,  of  the 
several  denominations,  have  discovered  that  we  are  really  not 
demons,  and  that  it  is  possible  that  Baptist  doctrines  and 

♦  Fuller's  Chiuch  Hist.  Book  9,  seel.  3,  pp.  42,  43. 


CHANGE  OF  SENTIMENT  TOWARDS  US.  127 

obedience  may  claim  affinity  to  Christianity.  They,  indeed, 
now  believe  that,  excepting  our  bigotry  in  pertinaciously 
adhering  to  diose  antiquated  and  obsolete  forms  of  religion, 
established  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  believed  and  practised  by 
the  primitive  disciples,  we  are  excellent  brethren.  They 
accord  us  the  honour  of  being  "  a  branch  of  the  Church  of 
Christ."  They  expect  to  "  commune  with  us  in  heaven," 
and  they  propose  to  antedate  our  celestial  unity  by  an  earthly 
amalgamation.  While  prisons,  and  fires,  and  chains,  were 
their  instruments,  we  stood  firm  and  unmoved  amidst  them 
all.  Shall  we  at  last  be  seduced  from  our  allegiance  by  the 
syren  voice  of  flattery  ?  Of  the  two  this  is  immeasurably 
the  stronger  weapon.  The  danger  that  we  shall  now  make 
shipwreck  of  faith  is  greater  than  ever  before. 

*' Praise  from  the  rival'd  lips  of  toothless  bald 
Decrepitude,  and  in  the  looks  of  lean 
And  craving  poverty,  and  in  the  bow 
Respectful  of  the  smutched  artificer, 
Is  oft  too  welcome,  and  may  much  disturb 
The  bias  of  the  purpose;  how  much  more 
Poured  forth  by  beauty,  splendid  and  polite. 
In  language  soft  as  adoration  breathes." 

"  Violence  is  no  more  heard  in  our  land ;  wasting  nor  de- 
struction within  our  borders."  The  sunshine  of  prosperity 
casts  about  us  a  halo  of  brightness.  Our  brethren  approach 
us,  not  with  fetters  and  fagots,  but  with  smiles  and  kindness. 
'J'hey  say  to  us  in  effect — Do  give  up  your  principles  as 
Baptists,  and  then  we  shall  have  no  more  difficulty.  We 
love  you  as  brethren,  but  your  doctrines  and  practices  are 
most  unfortunate.  They  are  indescribably  odious;  and 
while  they  can  be  of  no  consequence  to  genuine  religion, 
they  serve  only  to  make  you  ^' unpopular.'^  Pray  let  us 
blot  out  the  Baptist  church.     It  is  such  a  stubborn,  bigoted, 


12S  REASONS    FOR    STRICT    COMMUNiON. 

illiberal  cliiirch,  and,  withal,  in  this  country,  so  flourishing, 
numbering,  with  its  adherents,  one  fourth  of  the  population. 
Let  us  blot  it  out,  and  the  result  will  be  so  glorious.  Then 
tliere  will  l^e  no  impediment,  and  we  shall  all  unite  in  one 
delightful  fellowship  of  love  and  communion  ! 

Having  bravely  fought  the  batde,  and,   during  eighteen 
hundred  years,  maintained  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the 
saints,  shall  we,  so  near  the  goal  of  all  our  hopes,  ignobly 
put  off  our  armor,  and  ingloriously  perish  in  the  affectionate 
embraces  of  fraternal  liberalism  ?     But  I  am  told  that  ail 
this  is  mere  fancy,  a  dream  of  the  imagination,  that  our  pro- 
miscuous communion  could  not,  and  would  not  have  any 
such  effect.     We  have  already  seen  that  it  could  not  take 
place  without  either  an  abandonment  of  our  principles,  or  a 
practical  falsification  of  them.     Of  this  fact  it  is  impossible 
to  doubt.     After  having  been  thus  despoiled  of  our  integrity, 
would  the  desire  be  worth  even  a  thought  still  to  continue  in 
separate  existence  ?  What  motive  could  remain  to  prompt  the 
inclination  of  being  ?     And  even  if  cherished,  with  whatever 
anxiety,  it  would  be  hopeless.     The  strongest  advocate  open 
communion  ever  had,  and  all  its  most  discerning  friends  con- 
cur M'ith  him,  candidly  confesses  that  its  universal  prevalence 
would    certainly,  and    resistlessly,  anniiiilate    the    Baptist 
church.     On  this  sul^jcct  Mr.  Hall  remarks — "  Of  the  ten- 
dency of  mixed  communion  to  promote  a  more  candid  inquiry 
into  our  principles  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  doubt ;  whcthci." 
it  would  have  the  effect  of  rapidly  extending  the    Baptisi 
church  as  such,  is  less  certain.     For  were  that  practice  uni- 
versally to  prevail,  the  mixture  of  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists 
in  Christian  societies  would,  probably,  ere  long  be  such  that 
the  appellation  of  Baptists  might  be  found,  not  so  properly 
applicable  to  churches,  as  to  individuals,  while  some  more 
comprehensive  term  migh!;  possibh'  bo  cnipkned  to  discri- 


EFFECT  OF  A  CONTRARV   PRACTICE.  129 

minate  the  views  of  collective  bodies.  But  what  tlicii  ?  Are 
we  contending  for  names,  or  for  things  ?  If  the  effect  ot  a 
more  liberal  system  shall  be  found  to  mcrease  the  numl^er  of 
those  wlio  return  to  the  primitive  practice  of  baptism,  and 
thus  follow  the  Lamb  whithersoever  he  goeth,  he  must  be 
possessed  of  a  deplorable  imbecility,  and  narrowness  of  mind, 
who  will  lament  the  disappearance  of  a  name,  especially  when 
it  is  remembered  that  whenever  just  views  on  the  suliject 
shall  become  universal,  the  name  by  which  we  are  at  present 
distinguished  will  necessarily  cease.  An  honest  sohcitude 
for  the  restoration  of  a  divine  ordinance  to  its  primitive  sim- 
phcity  and  purity  is  not  merely  innocent  but  meritorious ; 
but  if  the  ultimate  consequence  of  such  an  improvement 
should  be  to  merge  the  appellation  of  a  party  into  that  which 
is  derived  from  the  divine  founder  of  our  religion,  it  is  an 
event  that  none  but  a  bigot  will  regi'et."* 

It  is  not  my  design  to  make  any  comment  upon  this  pas- 
sage, introduced  so  much  at  length.  The  proof  which  it 
affords  of  the  truth  of  our  proposition  now  in  question  is 
conclusive.  Having  renounced  the  faith  of  the  Gospel  as  a 
concession  to  Christian  union,  we  next  give  up  our  existence 
as  a  church,  and  distribute  our  members  among  the  surround- 
ing sects,  and  for  what?  In  the  vain  hope  that  as  a  com- 
pensation for  our  voluntary  destruction,  they  will  receive 
baptism,  Avliich  to  bequeath  to  them  is  the  only  motive  for 
our  death.  And  what,  should  they  condescendingly  fulfil 
our  hopes,  will  they  do  Avith  it  ?  They  will  add  it  to  their 
pedoism^  and  engraft  it  upon  their  Arminianism  and  Calvin- 
ism, their  Presbyterianism,  Lutheranism,  and  Episcopacy, 
and  what  would  their  religion  be  the  better  of  it  ?  To  say 
the  least  it  would  be  not  less  heterogeneous  in  its  composi- 
tion, or  inconsistent  in  its  form,  than  it  is  at  present.     What 

*  Works,  vol.  ii.  pp.  228,  229. 


139  REASONS    FOR    STRICT    COMMUNION. 

Baptist  is  sufRciently  free  from  "  iinbecility,  bigotry,  and 
narrowness  of  mind,"  to  feel  prepared  for  this  "  meritorious" 
act  of  "  improvement."  Which  of  her  sons  will  raise  his 
voice  or  his  hand,  rudely  to  extinguish  the  only  church 
which,  like  the  sun  in  mid  heaven,  has  poured  the  pure  light 
of  truth  upon  the  world.  Such  a  religious /e/o  de  se  would 
be  equally  displeasing  to  God,  and  fatal  to  the  interests  of 
piety  among  men.  That  close  communion  will  ere  long 
cease  to  exist,  we  too  are  fully  assured.  The  event,  how- 
ever, Avill  not  be  induced  by  an  abandonment  of  the  truth,  on 
the  part  of  its  ad\'Ocates,  nor  by  the  destruction  of  the  church 
of  the  Redeemer,  but  b}''  the  conscientious  and  full  obedience 
of  all  the  people  of  God.  Thus  we  have  seen  that,  to  adopt 
the  popular  system  of  free  communion,  we  must  renounce 
our  cherished  principles,  confess  that  the  sprinkling  of  infants 
is  true  ajid  lav/ful  baptism,  and  that  we  are  re-bap tizers  ;  or 
otherwise  practically  falsify,  and  dishonor  all  our  professions, 
rnb  the  church  of  her  honors,  and  abandon  her  to  darkness, 
and  non-existence.  We  are  not  prepared  to  meet  these  re- 
sults. No  peculiar  affection  towards  us,  or  promises,  by 
other  denominations,  of  love,  sympathy,  or  obedience,  can 
lay  us  under  obligations  to  prove  thus  recreant  to  all  that  is 
sacred  and  holy.  The  word  of  God  is  our  only  standard, 
and  to  the  duties  it  imposes  we  must  conform  at  all  Innes, 
and  in  every  particular.  The  consequences  of  our  oljedicncc 
we  leave  to  Jehovah.  These  considerations  constitute  our 
first  reason  for  decliniug  to  unite  with  our  Fedobaptist  bret]> 
ren  in  Sacramental  Communion. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

WE  CANNOT  ENGAGE  IN  CONMUNION  WITH  OUR  PEUU13APTIST 
BRETHREN,  BECAUSE  THEY  ARE  NOT  BAPTIZED,  HAVING 
RECEIVED  THE  RITE  IN  THEIR  INFANCY. 

There  is  no  law  for  infant  baptism — The  commission  does  not  authorize 
it — The  teachings  of  the  Apostles — Their  practice — The  object  for 
which  baptism  is  received — The  actions  of  those  baptized  by  the 
Apostles — Infant  baptism  is  an  evil — It  is  prohibited  in  the  word  of 
God. 

A  SECOND  reason  exists  proliibiting  our  sacramental  inter- 
course with  Pedobaptists.  The  law  of  Christ  requires 
baptism  as  a  preliminary  measure,  and  they  have  n-ot  been 
baptized.  To  this  fact  we  have  already  very  frequently  re- 
ferred, and  we  now  proceed  more  fully  to  explain  ourselves 
in  the  premises. 

"  Baptism  is  an  ordinance  of  Christ,"  says  Dr.  Gale  ;  "  it 
must,  of  necessity,  be  celebrated  exactly  as  he  appointed. 
And  since,  to  the  very  being  of  baptism,  a  subject  to  whom 
it  must  be  administered  is  necessary,  and  a  mode  of  admin- 
istering, without  which  it  would  only  be  a  notion  in  the 
brain,  these  things  are  as  necessary  as  baptism  itself."*  In 
another  place  he  remarks  : — "  That  only  is  baptism  which 
Christ  appointed ;  and,  therefore,  that  which  differs  from 
v/hat  he  appointed,  differs  from  baptism ;  and  to  bring  in 
alterations,  is  to  change  the  tiling,  and  make  it  not  the  same, 
but  another." 


On  Wall,  Loud.  ed.  1S2S,  p.  G6. 

131 


lrV2  REASONS    FOR    STRICT    COMMTNION. 

These  propositions  are  most  clearly  so  many  axioms,  and 
in  view  of  them  I  proceed  to  remark  that  Pedobaptists  are 
not  baptized,  because  they  received  the  rite  in  their  infancy. 
In  religion,  or  in  any  of  its  nr(linnncp«  we  admit  of  no  au- 
thority but  the  Bible.  Who,  according  to  this  standard,  are 
we  to  regard  as  entitled  to  receive  baptism  ?  I  answer,  be- 
Levers,  and  believers  only.  Of  this  fact  we  are  assured  by 
the  law  of  baptism  J  by  the  teachings  of  the  apostles  on  the 
subject ;  by  the  practice  they  pursued  in  its  administration  ; 
by  the  objects  had  in  view  in  receiving  the  rite  ;  and  by  the 
actions  performed  by  the  baptized.  A  very  brief  notice  of 
each  of  these  points  will  be  sufficient  for  my  present  purpose. 

That  believers,  and  believers  only,  are  entitled  to  receive 
this  ordinance  is  proved,  by  the  law  of  baptism. 

This  is  the  same  law  with  that  of  the  Lord's  supper, — 
the  apostolic  commission,  in  which  it  is  proper  to  for  us  to 
observe,  that  several  distinct  and  dissimilar  duties  are  en- 
joined. "  Go  ye,  and  teach  all  nations."  Such  is  the  first 
oljligation  imposed.  The  word  —  fiaOsrsvaa-ts  —  ti'anslated 
tench,  is,  as  every  scholar  knows,  properly  rendered  to 
disciple.  "  It  is  used,"  says  the  Christian  Review,  "  in  no 
single  instance,  either  in  sacred  or  classic  writers,  in  which 
the  idea  of  instruction  is  not  involved.  •  To  become  a  disci- 
ple of  Christ  is  to  l^elieve  in  him,  and  obey  him.  'I'o  disci- 
ple all  nations,  therefore,  is  to  bring  them  by  faith  into  the 
school  of  Christ  in  which  they  are  to  learn  his  will.  When 
this  is  accomplished,  and  not  in  any  instance  before,  a  second 
duty  becomes  imperative.  They  are  to  be  baptized,  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
How  this  is  to  be  done,  is  an  inquiry  which  belongs  to  a 
discussion  of  the  action  of  baptism.  When  this  is  accom- 
plished, the  disciples  are,  lastly,  to  be  instructed  to  observe 
all  oilier  tilings  mjoined  by  the  word  of  revelation  :  '  Tench 


PEDORAPTrSTS   ARE  NOT  BAPTIZED.  133 

ing  them  to  observe  all  ihiiigs  whatsoever  I  have  commanded 
you.'  "* 

To  every  one,  who  reflects  a  moment  on  the  subject,  it  is 
as  obvious  as  that  these  commands  have  any  authority  at 
all,  that,  to  the  acceptableness  of  our  obedience,  they  must 
be  observed,  as  we  have  before  fully  seen,  in  the  order  in 
which  they  were  delivered.  On  this  point,  it  cannot  be 
necessary  for  me  now  to  add  many  remarks.  This  order  is 
not  accidental,  nor  can  it  be  violated  without  a  breach  of  the 
law  itself.  As  long  as  it  is  the  duty  of  ministers  to  preach, 
and  of  sinners  to  believe,  so  long  it  will  be  the  duty  of  every 
beUever,  when  he  becomes  such,  to  be  baptized.  For  the 
correctness  of  this  exposition  of  the  commission,  we  have  the 
highest  authority  which  the  Pedobaptist  world  can  produce 
—the  attestation  of  their  own  best,  and  most  cherished 
writers,  some  of  which  we  will  adduce. 

Jerome,  a  celebrated  Latin  Father  of  the  fourth  century, 
acknovrledged  the  most  learned  writer  of  the  age  in  which 
he  lived,  in  commenting  on  the  commission,  alludes  to  the 
point  before  us  in  the  following  lanffuage  : — "  They — tlie 
apostles  and  their  successors  in  the  ministry — -first  teach  all 
nations  ;  then,  wlien  they  are  tauglit,  they  baptize  them  in 
water  ;  for  it  cannot  be  that  the  body  should  receive  the 
sacrament  of  baptism,"  unless  the  soul  has  received  btfore 
the  true  faith."t 

John  Calvin,  of  Geneva,  the  great  Reformer,  and  father 
of  the  Presbyterian  church,  in  his  Harmony  of  the  Evan- 
gelists, remarks: — "Because  Christ  requires  teaching 
btfore  baptizing,  and  will  have  believers  only  admitted  to 
baptism,  baptism  does  not  seem  to  be  riglitly  administered, 
except  faith  precedes. "."{: 

*  Vol.  iii.  p.  205.  t  Gale  on  Wall,  p.  319. 

X  Comm.  in  loco. 

12 


134  REASONS    FOR    STRTCT    COMMUMOM. 

To  the  Himcd  Ridiard  Baxter  we  have  before  had  refer- 
ence ;  I  will  be  pcnnitled  to  quote  agaui  from  his  work  re- 
specting the  "  Rig'hts  to  the  Sacraments,"  in  which  he  iniro- 
duces  the  following  passage: — "As  for  tliose  that  say  ihcy 
are  discipled  by  baplizing,  and  not  bffore  baptizing,  lliey 
speak  not  the  sense  of  the  text,  nor  that  whicli  is  true  or 
rational.  Else  why  should  one  be  baptized  more  than  an- 
other ?  This  is  not  like  some  occasional  historical  mention 
of  baptism,  but  is  the  very  command  of  Clirist,  and  pur- 
posely expresscth  their  several  ivorks  in  their  several 
places  and  order.  The  first  task  is,  by  teaching,  to  make 
disciples — which  Mark  calls  believers.  The  second  work 
is  to  baptize  them.  The  third  work  is  to  teach  them  all 
other  things  which  are  afterwards  to  be  learned  in  the 
school  of  Christ.  To  contemn  this  order  is  to  renounce  all 
rules  of  order ;  for  where  can  we  expect  to  find  it  if  not  here  1 
My  conscience  is  fully  satisfied  from  this  text,  that  it  is  one 
kind  of  faith,  even  saving,  that  must  go  before  baptism, 
and  the  profession  whereof  the  minister  must  expect."* 

We  could  readily  quote  numerous  other  writers  who  mam- 
tam  the  same  doctrine,  whose  piety  and  learning  have  adorned 
every  age  of  the  church,  but  these  are  sufficient  to  prove  that 
our  Baptist  exposition  of  the  commission,  as  respects  the  per- 
sons lawfully  entitled  to  receive  the  ordinance,  is  no  novelty  in 
the  science  of  herineneutics. 

The  Scriptures,  in  the  hands  of  a  man  familiar  willi  all 
tiieir  parts,  on  most  topics  satisfactorily  interpret  themselves. 
This  remark  is  especially  true  in  regard  to  the  subject  now 
under  consideration.  The  law  of  baptism,  as  recorded  by 
Maric,t  affords  a  striking  explanation  of  the  same  law  as 
recorded  liy  Matthew. t  According  to  Mark,  it  has  the  fol- 
lowing reading:  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the 

*  Pp.  91,  1 19,  153.      t  Chap.  xvi.  15,  16.       t  Chap,  xxviii.  19,  20. 


INFANT    BAPTISM    IS    UNLAWFUL.  135 

Gospel  to  every  creiitiire ;  he  that  l)ehevetli  and  is  bap- 
tized shall  be  saved;  and  he  that  beheveth  not  shall  be 
damned."  Matthew's  version  is :  "  Go  ye,  therefore,  and 
teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  teacliing  them  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you  ;  and, 
lo,  I  am  widi  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 
A  moment's  comparison  of  this  law,  as  recorded  by  the  two 
sacred  writers  named,  must  convince  every  man  that  the 
persons  called  by  one  the  tavght,  are,  as  Jerom,  Calvin, 
B:ixter,  and  many  more,  justly  maintain,  by  the  other  called 
believrs.  It  is  therefore  true,  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt, 
that  if  the  law  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  only  law  on  that 
subject  he  ever  enacted,  or  announced  to  the  world,  is  to 
govern  us,  believers  alone  are  to  be  baptized,  and  every  be- 
liever, as  soon  as  he  becomes  such,  is  required  to  submit  to 
the  ordinance. 

These  facts,  it  will  be  seen,  leave  no  room  for  infant  bap- 
tism. If  such  a  rite  has  been  administered,  it  was  unlawful, 
and  we  are  not  permitted  to  recognize  it.  The  law  requires 
every  man,  when  he  becomes  a  believer,  to  be  baptized. 
The  order  of  the  commission  is  peremptory.  No  reserva- 
tions or  exceptions  are  admitted.  The  baptism  of  everv 
believer,  when  he  is  a  believer,  is  essential  to  a  compliance 
with  the  divine  requisition.  It  is,  therefore,  true,  that  if  even 
an  inspired  command  exists,  m  any  other  part  of  the  word 
of  God,  directing  the  baptism  of  unbelievers,  or  of  infants, 
or  of  any  other  classes  of  persons  than  those  described  in  the 
statute,  it  is  another  baptism,  and  does  not,  and  cannot 
affect,  in  the  slightest  degree,  the  validity  and  force  of  this 
order,  to  baptize  every  man  when  and  as  soon  as  he  becomes 
u  behever.  The  law,  I  a^rain  remark,  makes  no  exceptions. 
None  are  mtimated.     The  aescription  of  the  person  to  be 


13G  REASONS    FOR    STRICT    COMMUNION. 

baptized,  as  obviously  excludes  all  others,  as  it  requires  hiiTj 
to  obey.  The  baptism  of  infants,  contended  for  by  our  breth 
ren  of  other  churches,  if  it  has  a  legjl  existence,  is  another 
baptism.  There  is,  however,  but  one  bap f ism.  Paul  asserts, 
that  as  there  is  but  one  Lord,  and  07ie  faith,  so  there  is  but 
one  baptism.^  There  is,  therefore,  no  baptism  for  infants, 
or  for  any  other  class  of  persons  but  those  who  believe,  evan- 
gelically, in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 

That  believers,  and  behevers  only,  are  lawfully  entitled  to 
receive  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  is  still  further  manifest  by 
the  teachings  of  the  apostles  and  evangelists  on  the  subject. 

They  well  knew  the  extent  of  the  authority  confided  to 
them  by  the  great  Head  of  the  church  in  this  matter.  To 
them,  personally,  the  law  was  delivered ;  they  were  endowed 
with  wisdom  from  on  high  to  understand  its  true  interpreta- 
tion ;  and  they  were  preserved  from  error  in  their  instructions 
and  administrations  by  the  presence  and  inspiration  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  What  did  they  teach  on  the  subject  before  us  ? 
A  correct  reply  to  this  inquiry  is  derived  most  easily  from  an 
examination  of  their  instructions. 

A  few  days  after  the  ascension  of  our  Lord,  the  apostolic 
company  were  all  together  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  when 
they  addressed  a  vast  assembly  with  the  most  astonishing 
effect.  The  speech  of  Peter,  on  this  occasion,  has  been  pre- 
served and  transmitted  to  us.  In  that  speech,!  we  find  a  re- 
ference to  baptism  in  the  following  language  :  "  Repent,  and 
be  baptized,  every  one  of  you." 

On  the  memorable  occasion  when  the  Gospel  was  given 
to  the  Gentiles,  another  instance  occurs  of  the  teaching  of  the 
apostle  of  the  circumcision.  The  word  had  been  fully  pro- 
posed to  the  assembly  in  the  house  of  Cornelius.  They  had 
been  taught,  and  had  embraced  the  truth  of  the  religion  of 

*  Eph.  iv.  5.  t  Acts  ii.  38. 


PEDODAPTISTS    ARE    NOT    BAPTIZED.  137 

Christ.  The  Holy  Ghost  had  descended  upon  them,  re- 
generating and  filling  their  souls  with  joy  and  peace  in  be- 
Ueving.  Then  said  the  apostle,  "  Who  can  forbid  water, 
that  these  should  not  be  baptized  who  have  received  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we  ?  And  he  commanded  them  to 
be  baptized."* 

The  teachings  of  the  evangelists  conform  strictly  to  those 
of  the  aposdes.  Philip,  when  the  church  was  scattered,  and 
its  members  driven  from  Jerusalem,  by  the  violence  of  the 
persecution  which  followed  tlie  martyrdom  of  Stephen,  "  went 
down  to  Samaria,  and  preached  Christ  to  them."  It  is  added,t 
"  When  they  believed  Philip  preaching  the  things  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  and  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  they  were 
baptized,  both  men  and  ivomen.^^  So  scrupulous  was  tliis 
evangelist  in  his  determination  to  conform  to  the  commission 
by  baptizing  believers,  and  believers  only,  that  on  another 
memorable  occasion,  although  previously  divinely  instructed 
as  to  his  character,  when  the  treasurer  of  Candace,  queen  of 
the  Ethiopians,  had  been  taught  by  him,  had  avowed  himself 
a  convert,  and  had  made  application  for  baptism,  he  paused 
to  question  him  on  his  religious  experience,  and  replied  to 
his  request,!  by  saying,  "  If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart, 
thou  mayest"  be  baptized. 

When  Saul  of  Tarsus  had  repented  of  his  sins,  had  be- 
lieved in  the  Lord  Jesus  Chiist,  and,  to  employ  the  scrip- 
ture terms  which  express  his  regeneration,  "  the  scales  had 
fallen  fi'om  his  eyes,"  Ananias,  of  Damascus,  said  to  him, 
^^Noio  why  tarriest  thou  ?  Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash 
away  thy  sins,  calhng  on  the  nanie  of  the  Lord."§ 

Such  are  the  instances  of  the  teachings  on  this  sulDJect,  of 
the  apostles  and  apostolic  ministers  ;  and  they  conform,  v/ith- 

*  Acts  s.  47.  ''^'       I  Acts  viii.  3S. 

+  Acts  viii,  12.  %  Acts  xsii.  16. 


138  REASONS    FOR    STRICT    COMMUNION. 

«;iit  an  exception,  to  the  interpretation  of  the  cominis5\o'  which 
we  have  submitted. 

Let  it  not  be  presumed  that  Baptists  are  alone  m  /ic  firm 
opinion  that,  in  no  instance,  does  an  apostle,  «f  jpostolic 
minister  teach  that  any  but  believers  should  be  Vapt'zsd.  I 
will  ofler  for  consideration  the  opinions  of  two  or  three  of 
the  great  German  critics,  of  the  present  century,  all  of  whom 
are  Pedobaptists,  and  acknowledged  to  be  among  the  most 
profound  Bibhcal  scholars  the  world  ever  produced.* 

The  great  Schleirmacher,  in  his  Christian  Theologj^  re- 
marks : — "All  traces  of  infant  baptism  which  one  will  find  in 
the  New  Testament,  must  first  be  put  into  it."t  Profc/rfor 
Hahn,  in  his  Theology,  says : — "  Baptism,  according  to  its 
origmal  design,  can  be  given  only  to  adults,  who  are  capable 
of  true  knowledge,  repentance,  and  faith.  Neither  in  the 
Scriptures  nor  during  the  first  hundred  and  fifty  years,  i-s  a 
sure  example  of  infant  baptism  to  be  found ;  and  we  must 
concede  that  the  numerous  opposers  of  it  cannot  be  contra- 
dicted on  Gospel  grounds. "J 

Professor  Lange,  on  Infant  Baptism,§  observes: — "All 
attempts  to  make  out  infant  baptism  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment fail.  It  is  totally  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  the  apostolic 
age,  and  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  New  Testament." 

We  need  not  extend  our  observations  on  this  head.  It  is 
now,  I  trust,  sufficiently  evident,  so  far  as  the  teachings  of 
the  apostles,  and  apostolic  ministers  are  concerned,  that  be- 
lievers only  are  entitled  to  receive  the  sacrament  of  baptism. 

The  doctrine  we  now  defend  is  still  further  established  by 
the  recorded  practice  of  the  apostles,  and  their  associates,  who 
never,  in  a  single  instance,  administered  baptism  to  any  but 

*  I  quote  the  translation  of  the  Christian  Review,  vol.  iii.  197,  193, 
t  P.  383.  t  P.  5o6.  ^  P.  101. 


TEDOnAPTISTS    ARE    NOT  BAPTIZED.  ]39 

tliose  who  Tiad  previously  professed  tlieir  fliilh  in  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ. 

The  first  baptism  administered  after  tlie  ascension  of  Christ, 
took  place,  as  we  have  already  intimated,  in  Jerusalem.  On 
this  occasion  those  who  were  admitted  to  the  ordinance  are 
particularly  described  •■ — "  Theij  that  gladly  received  the  word 
were  baptized."  The  pronoun  they,  as  here  employed,  as 
necessarily  excludes  all  others  from  the  ordinance  then  ad- 
ministered, as  it  attests  the  fact  tliat  "  tliey  tliat  gladly  re- 
ceived the  word"  were  admitted. 

Paul  and  his  companions  preached  the  Gospel  in  Corinth. 
• — It  is  addedt — "  Many  of  the  Cormtliians,  hearing,  be- 
lieced,  and  were  baptized." 

When  the  Eunucht  had  solemnly  professed  his  faith  in 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  "  they  both  went  down  into  the  water, 
and  Philip  baptized  him." 

The  Samaritans,  hoxh.  men  and  ivomen,§  "when  they  be- 
lieved, were  baptized." 

Crispus,  the  chief  ruler  of  the  synagogue  in  Philippi, 
and  every  member  of  his  family,  through  the  instramentality 
of  Paul,  who  boarded  in  the  house,  believed,  and  were  all 
baptized,  by  tlie  hands  of  the  apostle  hims^f. 

Such  are  the  instances  of  the  apostles'  practice.  Those 
who  received  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  spake  with  tongues,  as 
in  the  house  of  Cornelius  ;  and  those  who  believed  in  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  rejoiced  in  hope  ;  were  baptized 
"both  men,  and  women;"  but  not  the  slightest  intimation 
is  given  that  children,  in  a  single  instance,  were  admitted 
lo  this  sacred  rite.  On  the  contrary  no  case  can  be  found 
on  record  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  in  which  it  is  not  either 

*  Acts  ii.  41.  X  Acts  viii.  38. 

t  Acts  xviii.  8.  ^  Acts  viii.  12. 


140  REASONS    FOR    STRICT    COMMUNION. 

expressly  stated,  or  plainly  implied,  that  the  person  bap- 
tized was,  previously,  a  believer  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Lest,  however,  any  one  may  presume  that  1  have  selected 
the  instances  adduced  to  suit  our  own  views,  and  that,  al- 
though none  of  these  favor  infant  baptism,  there  are  others 
that  do,  I  beg"  leave  to  refer  again  to  some  of  the  most 
learned  and  candid  Pedobaptist  divines,  who,  in  their 
works,  deliberately  arranged,  written,  and  published  to  the 
world,  have  explicitly  admitted  the  truth  of  all  the  facts  I 
have  now  stated. 

Dr.  Goodwin,  a  mem.ber  of  the  Assembly  of  Divines  at 
Westminster,  holds  this  language  : — "  Baptism  supposeth 
regeneration  sure  in  itself  first.  Sacraments  are  never  ?.d- 
ministered  to  begin,  or  work  gi'ace."  He  adds — "  R{;ad 
all  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  still  it  is  said — They  belietedt 
and  were  baptized."* 

Professor  Limborch  says — "  No  instance  can  be  pro- 
duced from  which  it  may  be  indisputably  inferred  that  any 
child  was  baptized  by  the  apostles."! 

To  these  testimonies  we  will  only  add  that  of  a  man  of 
our  own  age,  whose  name,  and  literary  character,  are  known 
to  every  scholar.  I  refer  to  Bretschneider.  He  says  :|— - 
"  Rhcinard,  Morus,  and  Doderlein,  say — Infant  baptism  is 
not  to  be  found  in  the  Bible."  The  Christian  Review 
quotes  this  passage  and  adds§ — "  We  need  say  nothing  of 
the  literary  character  of  these  three  great  men." 

AVe  are  now,  I  think,  authorized  to  say,  that  the  practice 
of  the  aposdes  justifies  the  conclusion  that  believers  and  be- 
lievers only  are  entided  to  receive  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 

I  further  observe  that  the  objects  designed  to  be  effected 

*  Works,  vol.  i.  part  1,  p.  200.  t  Theology,  vol.  ii.  p.  758. 

t  Com.  Sys.  Div.  Lib.  5,  cap.  22.         ^  Vol.  iii.  p.  200. 


PEDOBAPTISTS    ARE    NOT    BAPTIZED.  Ill 

by  baptism  can  possibly  be  accomplished  only  when  be- 
lievers are  the  subjects  of  the  ordinance. 

Baptism  is  the  appointed  form  in  which,  in  part  at  least. 
we  make  a  profession  of  the  religion  of  Christ.  Such  a 
profession  is  not,  and  cannot  be,  complete  without  it.  This 
truth  is  so  obvious  that  I  suppose  it  will  be  cheerfully  ad- 
mitted by  the  well  informed  Christians  of  every  denomina- 
tion. If,  in  the  apostolic  day,  a  man  was  baptized,  he  was 
regarded  by  all  as  having  made  a  profession  of  religion. 
So  it  is  now,  and  so  it  has  been  in  all  ages  and  countries. 

Paul  teaches  this  doctrine  in  the  plainest,  and  most  une- 
quivocal terms.  He  says  to  the  Galatians — "  Ye  are  all 
the  children  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus."*  But  how  could 
this  be  true,  on  the  Pedobaptist  principle  ?  If  some  mem- 
bers of  that  church  were  baptized  inflmts,  then  either 
Paul's  statement  of  them  was  not  true, — they  were  not  all 
the  children  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  or  else  he  tar.ght  the 
doctrine  that  baptism  alone,  irrespective  of  belief  in  Christ, 
or  any  work  of  the  Spirit  of  God — of  either  of  which  infants 
are  mcapable — -did  constitute  the  babes  ^vho  received  it,  as 
fully  as  the  regeneration  of  the  souls  of  the  believers,  the 
children  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus.  This  would  have  been 
contradictory,  and  manifestly  absurd.  He  taught  no  such 
doctrine.  The  apostle  himself  tells  us  why  he  assumed 
this  predicate  of  the  Galatians  : — "  Ye  are  all  the  children 
of  God,  in  Christ  Jesus,  for" — or  because — "  as  many  of 
you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ" 
— have  professed  yourselves  Christians.  Not  that  bap- 
tizing them  made  them  Christians.  This  absurdity  Paul 
never  countenanced.  They  were  made  Christians  by  faith 
in  Christ  Jesus,  upon  a  profession  of  which,  he  assumes  it 
as  a  matter  of  course,  they  had  been  baptized,  ana  united 

*  Ch.  lii.   26,  27. 


142  REASONS   FOR   STRICT    COMxMUNlON. 

with  the  church.  He,  therefore,  naturally  concludes  they 
were  all  regenerated  persons — in  other  words,  "  the  chil- 
dren of  God  in  Christ  Jesus."  Archbishop  Tillotson,  with 
whom,  on  this  subject  we  entirely  agree,  expressly  says* 
— "  In  baptism  we  put  on  Christ" — or  make  a  public  pro- 
fession of  religion. 

Baptism,  therefore  being  the  appointed  form  in  which 
we  profess  the  religion  of  Christ,  how  can  he  who  has  no 
religion  make  a  profession  of  it,  \vithout  hypocrisy  ?  And 
when  baptism  is  applied  to  infants,  incapable  of  any  voli- 
tion whatever,  and  much  more  of  professions  of  any  kind, 
can  it  be  supposed,  without  the  abandonment  of  reason, 
that  the  object  of  the  ordinance  is  accomplished  ?  Unques- 
tionably it  cannot.  The  practice,  sometimes  adopted,  of 
appointing  sponsors,  who  profess  as  the  proxies  of  the  child, 
and  in  its  name  ;  and  bind  themselves  that  at  maturity,  it 
"  shall  renounce  the  devil  and  all  his  works,  the  pomps  and 
vanities  of  this  wicked  world,"  while  it  is  an  indirect  con- 
fession, in  theory,  of  the  truth  of  the  Baptist  doctrine,  but 
adds,  in  its  practice, — ^besides  the  sin  of  religiously  promising 
what  no  one  pretends  to  think  he  can  perform, — another 
item  to  the  absurdity  of  Pedobaptism,  by  presuming  that 
the  fiiith  of  one  man  can  be  appropriated  to  the  justification 
of  another. 

Neander,  known  in  our  country  as  the  author  of  the 
latest  and  best  Ecclesiastical  History  that  has  been  written  ; 
who  is  a  converted  Jew  and  Professor  of  Theology  in  the 
most  eminent  University  in  Prussia  ;  a  member  of  the  Lu- 
theran Church,  and  of  course  a  Pedobaptist,  refers  to  the 
matter  now  under  consideration  in  the  following  terms  : — 
"  As  baptism  was  closely  connected  with  a  conscious  en- 
trance into  Christian  fellowship,  and  as  faith  and  baptism 

*  Works,  vol.  V.  Serm.  7,  p.  179. 


INFANT  BAPTISM   A  NT'LLTTY 


143 


were  ahvays  joined  together,  it  is  altogether  prol3abk3  tliat 
it  was  administered  only  when  these  two  things  were 
united."*  How  else,  I  ask,  could  the  object  of  baptism 
have  been  attained  ?  An  involuntary  confession  of  Christ, 
and  v.diich  is  true  of  baptism  in  every  case,  except  in  tliat 
of  a  believer,  is  of  no  force  or  value,  at  the  tribunal  of  either 
God  or  man. 

Augustine,  the  Bishop  of  Hippo,  fourteen  hundred  j-ears 
ago,  defined  baptism  :  "  The  outward  and  visible  sign,  of 
the  inward  and  spiritual  grace."  Most  of  the  prevailing 
denominations  have  adopted  this  ancient  definition.  But 
what  does  it  mean  ?  Its  sense  must  be  that  in  the  regenera- 
tion of  the  soul  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  our  sins  are  forgiven, 
and  the  grace  imparted  which  dwells  within,  of  which  bap- 
tism is  at  the  same  time  a  figure  and  a  profession.  On  this 
account,  baptism  is  metaphorically  said  to  be  the  washing 
away  of  sins.  But  what  "inward  and  spiritual  grace"  is 
there  in  the  child,  of  which  "  baptism  is  the  outward  and 
visible  sign?"  Surely  regeneration  is  necessary  to  impart 
"  the  inward  and  spiritual  grace,"  or  none  can  exist.  Does 
any  one  pretend  that  infants  are  regenerated  before  tliey  are 
baptized?  ''The  Standards'''  maintain, 'as  we  shall  have 
occasion  hereafter  to  show,  that  baptism  imparts  regenera- 
tion ;  but  what  Fedobaptist  now  confesses  his  belief  in  this 
dogma?  Is  baptism  necessary  to  salvation*  Will  the 
opinion  that  it  is,  be,  in  this  enlightened  age,  publicly 
avowed !  That  the  word  of  God  directly  enjoins  their 
baptism,  no  well  read  man  will,  I  presume,  risk  his  repu- 
tation by  asserting.  What  benefit  can  it  impart?  It  is 
inipossible — physically  and  morally  impossible — for  the 
unconscious  babe  to  make  a  profession  of  religion. — Their 
baptism,   therefore,   is  without  signification.     It  is  of  no 

*  Hist,  of  Apostolic  Age,  vol.  i.  p.  140. 


141  REASONS    Foil    STKICT    COMMUNION. 

benefit  lo  them  in  tliis  world,  nor  in  the  world  to  come. 
It  is  not  an  act,  whether  on  the  parts  of  the  parents  or  tlie 
child,  of  obedience  to  Christ,  because  he  has  not  com- 
manded it.  Why,  then,  subject  them  to  the  rite,  appointed 
as  the  form  in  which  Christians  are  to  profess  the  religion 
of  Christ,  and  of  which  infants  can  at  best  be  only  the  in- 
voluntary and  passive  objects  ?  The  design,  therefore,  pro- 
posed to  be  effected  by  baptism,  can  be  secured  only  when 
believers  are  the  subjects,  and  consequendy  the  ordinance 
is  to  be  administered  alone  to  believers. 

The  actions  said  to  have  been  performed  by  those  who 
received  it,  complete  the  proof  that,  in  the  days  of  the  apos- 
tles, believers  and  believers  only  were  regarded  as  entitled 
to  baptism. 

Those  who  were  baptized  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  "gladly 
received  the  word,"  and  "  continued,  steadfastly,  in  the 
aposdes'  doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  in  breaking  of  bread, 
and  in  prayers."  The  Corinthians  "  heard,"  and  "  believed." 
The  guests  of  the  Centurion  "  received  the  Holy  Ghost," 
and  "  spake  with  tongues."  The  household  of  Lydia  were 
"  comforted"  by  the  promises  of  the  Gospel.  The  house- 
hold of  the  jailer  of  Philippi,  believed  in  God,  and  rejoiced. 
And  so  of  all  the  others.  Their  feehngs  and  acts  were  such 
as  were  dictated  by  enlightened  and  ardent  piety.  They 
were  natural  to  believers.  They  were,  in  the  aggi-egate, 
such  as  among  Baptist  churches,  generally,  we  constantly 
witness.  But  they  were,  without  exccpdon,  all  impossible 
to  infants,  and  as  necessarily  exclude  them  from  the  ordi- 
nance, as  if  it  had  been  expressly  affirmed,  that  those  only 
were  baptized,  who  were  members  of  the  national  council, 
soldiers  in  the  army,  or  merchants  in  business.  The  actions 
of  the  baptized  are  particularly  described  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment ;  they  are  those  of  which  infants  are  incapable  ;  there- 


INFANT  BAPTISM  AN  EVIL.  t45 

fore  it  is  impossible  that  infants  could  have  been  baptized  in 
tlie  days,  or  by  the  authority  of  the  apostles. 

In  these  plain  and  obvious  conclusions,  it  gives  us  great 
pleasure  to  have  the  concurrence  of  the  best  and  most  learned 
writers  among  Pedobaptists  themselves,  the  testimony  of  some 
of  whom  I  will  be  permitted  to  transcribe. 

Dr.  Wall,  the  great  champion  of  infant  baptism,  has  in  his 
history  made  an  admission  in  these  words  : — "Among  all  the 
persons  that  are  recorded  as  baptized  by  the  apostles,  there 
is  no  express  mention  of  any  infeiit."* 

Martin  Luther,  also,  the  incomparable  Reformer,  a  much 
greater-  man  than  Wall,  has  said  : — "  It  cannot  be  proved  by 
the  sacred  Scriptures,  that  infant  baptism  was  instituted  by 
Christ,  or  begun  by  the  first  Christians  after  the  aposdes."t 

In  the  facts  and  considerations  now  adduced  we  have 
shown  as  we  have  proposed,  from  the  plain  sense  of  the  law 
of  baptism  enacted  by  Christ ;  from  the  teachings  and  prac- 
tice of  the  aposdes  ;  from  the  objects  designated  to  be  effected 
by  baptism ;  from  the  actions  performed  by  those  who  re- 
ceived the  ordinance  ;  and  from  the  concessions  of  the  greatest 
and  most  learned  men  of  the  Pedobaptist  world,  fathers,  re- 
formers,  and  moderns,  that  believers,  and  believers  only,  are 
lawfully  entided  to  receive  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  We 
have  also  seen  that  infant  baptism  is  not  enjoined  in  the 
Bible,  was  not  practised  by  the  aposdes,  nor  "'commenced 
during  the  first,  and  purest  ages  of  the  church.  How  then, 
when  an  infant  is  sprinkled,  can  we  recognize  this  as  true 
Gospel  baptism  ? 

But  we  go  further  than  this.  We  propose  to  prove  that 
infant  baptism  is  an  evil^  and  that  it  is  positively  prohibited 
in  die  word  of  God. 

*  Introduction,  pp.  1 

t  Inst.  R's,  apud  Van.  of  Inf.  Bnp.  part  2,  p.  8. 

13 


14G  REASONS    FOR    STRICT    COMMUNION. 

Before  I  proceed,  however,  in  llie  argument,  I  will  briefly 
reply  to  an  inquiry  which  has,  I  doubt  not,  before  this  time, 
suggested  itself  to  the  mind  of  my  reader.     The  explanation 
will  also  prevent  the  necessity  of  referring  to  the  same  topic 
on  collateral  subjects  in  future.     The  numerous  Pedobaptist 
writers  quoted  in  this  and  other  chapters,  certainly  believed 
the  baptism  of  infants  lawful  and  obligatory,  otherwise  they 
would  not  have  practised  it.     How,  it  may  be  asked,  could 
thev  cherish  such  a  belief,  and  still  make  the  concessions 
which  have  been  recited?     I  answer,  they  certainly  did  both, 
and  seemed  not  to  be  at  all  conscious  that  any  inconsistency 
could  be  charged  against  them.     'J'here  are  men   of  little 
reading  and  humbler  abihties,  who  believe  it  is  enjoined  in 
the  New  Testament ;  but  the  great  and  learned  men  I  have 
quoted,  received  and  practised  infant  l^aptism,  not  because 
they  presumed  it  to  be  directly  taught  in  the  divine  law, — 
this,  they  maintain,  is  not  the  case, — but  because  they  found 
it  in  the  "  Standards  ;"  it  was  the  practice  of  the  church  ;  and 
they  imagined  they  could  not  conveniently  dispense  with  it ! 
It  has  been  defended  by  some  on  the  ground  of  '"■  Christian 
feeling^     This  seems  to  be  a  favorite  idea  with  the  Ger- 
man critics.     Some  advocate  it  because  they  say  it  wdll  do 
the  child  no  harm,  and  probably  render  the  parents  more 
sensible  of  their  obligations  to  rear  it  in  the  nurture  and  ad- 
monition of  the  Lord.     Some  derive  it,  by  analogy,  from  the 
circumcision  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  others  from  prose- 
lyte baptism,  and  others  plead  for  it  on  tlie  ground  that  all 
men  are  born  sinful  and  heathen,  and  baptism  must  he  admin- 
istered to  wash  away  their  sins,  reclaim  them  from  hea- 
thenism, and  initiate  them  into  covenant  with  God.     Others 
still  place  it,  like  Calvin,  upon  the  ground  that  the  church 
has  the  right  to  change  the  form  of  the  sacrament ;  and  still 
others,  with  the  fathers  of  Protestant  Episcopacy,  claim  that 


IXFAM"   liAPTISM  AN   EVIL.  147 

♦'  the  Church  has  power  to  decree  rites  and  ceremonies." 
It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that  although  all  the  Pedobaptist 
churches  concur  in  baptizing  their  children,  yet  no  two  of 
them  can  agree  as  to  the  reasons  why  they  do  so,  or  what 
children  they  shall  baptize.  These  facts  explain  the  whole 
mystery  how  the  admissions  we  have  quoted  could  be  made,  . 
and  yet  their  authors  believe  in  infant  baptism,  and  practice 
the  ceremony.  Great  men  are  not  always  great  in  every 
thing.  I  shall  not  here  attempt  a  refutation  of  their  argu- 
ments. For  this  purpose  I  refer  my  reader  to  the*  admirable 
History  of  Baptism,  by  the  Rev.  Isaac  T.  Hinton ;  the 
excellent  little  work  of  the  Rev.  Milo  P.  Jewett,  with  such 
other  books  as  Judd's  Review  of  Stewart ;  Carson  on  Bap- 
tism, and  many  more  of  higli  character.  How  can  such 
Pedobaptists  as  I  have  quoted  read  and  applaud,  as  so  many 
of  them  do,  the  immortal  maxim  of  Chillingworth,  and  yet 
be  Pedobaptists  ?  "  The  Bible — the  Bible  alone,  is  the  re- 
ligion of  Protestants."  How  could  Chillingworth  himself 
mingle  so  great  a  truth  with  his  own  Pedobaptisni  ?  But  I 
proceed  with  my  argument. 

My  postulate  is,  that  the  baptism  of  infants  is  an  evil. 

This  proposition  may,  at  the  first  aimunciation,  startle  the 
reader.  He  may  even  be  tempted  to  pronounce  it  unpar- 
donably  bold.  I  beg  indulgence,  however,  and  attention,  for 
but  a  moment,  and  my  reasons  for  the  sentiment  will  have 
been  submitted.  They  will  not  be  likely  to  pass  for  more 
than  they  are  worth. 

The  admission  of  infants  to  baptism  destroys  one  of  the 
main  designs  had  m  view  in  the  institution  of  baptism.  All 
denominations  and  all  ages  agree  in  regarding  baptism  as 
constituting  a  principal  part  of  the  visible  line  which  distin- 
guishes the  church  from  the  world.  No  one  can  be  recog- 
nized as  a  member  of  any  church  who  is  not  baptized  ;  and, 


148  REASONS    FOR    STRICT    COMMUNION. 

on  the  Other  liaiid,  all,  botli  infants  and  adults,  who  have  been 
baptized,  are  considered,  in  some  sort,  members  of  the  church. 
Infant  baptism,  however,  as  far  as  it  prevails,  destroys  this 
distinction,  and,  by  confounding  them  together,  ruins  the 
church,  without  beiieliting  the  world.  We  will  imagine,  for 
illustration,  that  from  this  moment,  Pedobaptist  principles 
are  fully  adopted  and  practised  by  all  people,  upon  the  face 
of  the  whole  earth.  Every  child,  as  soon  as  born,  would  be 
initiated  into  the  church,  and,  as  a  consequence,  in  one  gen- 
eration, every  man,  woman,  and  child  in  the  whole  world, 
would  be  in  the  church.  As  baptism  in  infancy  renders  no 
one,  in  any  respect,  more  moral  or  religious  than  he  would 
have  been  without  it,  or  increases  in  any  case  the  likelihood 
of  conversion,  the  church  would  exhibit,  with  perhaps  a  few 
lioly  men,  as  at  present,  a  liorde  of  infidels,  druukaids,  mur- 
derers, thieves,  and  robbers,  all  church  members  !  The  visi- 
bility of  the  church  would  be  lost ;  nor  could  it  ever  be 
regained  until,  by  a  return  to  Baptist  principles*,  believers, 
and  believers  only,  were  admitted  to  baptism. 

Infant  baptism  is  an  evil  on  another  account.  It  prevents 
tliose  who  have  received  it  from  being,  when  they  become 
believers,  baptized,  as  the  law  of  Christ  commands.  This 
law  requires  the  baptism  of  believers :  "  He  that  believeth 
and  is  baptized."  To  the  believer  is  the  promise  made,  and 
to  those  who  do  not  believe  and  yet  are  baptized,  there  is 
made,  on  that  account,  no  promise.  Any  ceremony,  there- 
ibre,  which  prevents  obedience  is  an  evil. 

Infant  baptism  is  an  evil  because  the  practice  serves  to 
perpetuate  the  error  that  originated  it — the  supposition  that 
:ill  repudiate,  that  all  still  feel,  and  to  which,  in  n^oments  of 
excitement,  they  instinctively  bow,  that  baptism  is  myste- 
riously connected  with  the  salvation  of  the  child,  or  in  some 
way  materially  affects  its  condition  and  prosjMiati  m  ^v>ihcr 


INFANT  BAI'TISM  PKOIIIKITED.  149 

stnte  of  being.  If  this  be  not  so,  how  can  we  account  for 
the  trembhng  sohcitiide  manifested  by  the  mass  of  otlierwise 
even  intelligent  people,  when  they  imagine  their  little  ones 
in  danger  of  death  ?  If  the  skies  pour  down  floods,  and  the 
earth  is  rocked  in  storms,  if  the  living  thunders  are  leaping 
every  moment  from  their  tempestuous  home,  and  darkness 
lilve  a  man  lie  covers  the  world,  not  a  moment  must  be  lost, 
the  minister  must  come,  and  the  child  must  be  baptized  at 
midnight,  lest  it  die!  I  reverence  parental  afl^ection ;  but 
why  should  it  suggest  a  resort  to  baptism  ?  Disguise  it  as 
we  may,  the  deception  is  fixed  in  the  soul. 

Numerous  otlier  proofs  of  the  same  fact  suggest  themselves, 
but  these  are  sufficient.  Infant  baptism,  therefore,  is  an  evil 
because  it  confounds  the  church  with  the  world ;  and  because 
by  it  liot?i  parents  and  children  are  betrayed  into  radical  error, 
and  deceived  in  relation  to  vital  articles  of  the  Christian  faith. 

I  have  said  that  the  baptism  of  infants  is  peremptorily 
and  explicitly  prohibited. 

It  is  pro!ul)ited  on  the  ground  that  it  is  useless,  that 
it  is  unreasonable,  and  that  it  is  an  evil.  All  these  facts 
we  have  fully  proved,  and  the  arguments  need  not  be 
repeated. 

The  apostolic  commission  prohibits  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants. We  have  seen  that  this  holy  statute  describes  par- 
ticularly the  person  to  be  baptized.  They  arc  believers. 
It  is  impossible  that  a  command  to  baptize  believers  can 
include  infants.  No  explanation  can  bring  tliem  into  it. 
Even  if  there  was  a  command,  in  some  other  part  of  the 
word  of  God,  authorizing  or  requiring  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants, which  we  have  seen  is  not  tiiie,  it  vv'ould  not,  unless 
some  exception  could  be  discovered,  in  which  the  law  of 
the  commission,  requiring  every  one  to  be  baptized  when  he 
becomes  a  believer,  may  bo  suspended,  interfere  with  its 
1:5* 


150  REASONS  FOR  STRICT  COMMUNION. 

regiibir  administration.     The  law  of  God,  therefore,  pro- 
hi!)its  the  baptism  of  infants. 

But  we  have  still  more  direct  authority  on  the  point  in 
question. 

Baptism,  as  we  have  seen,  is  enacted  by  positive  law. 
The  obligation  to  obey  a  positive  law  arises  solely  from 
the  authority  of  the  Lawgiver.  Therefore  the  law  of  the 
institution  is  the  only  rule  of  obedience.  If,  then,  there  is 
no  plain  command  there  is  no  law.  We  have  seen  that  all 
tlie  great  Pedobaptist  writers  confess  there  is  in  the  Bible  no 
direct  command  for  infant  baptism.  But  the  matter  does 
not  rest  here.  AVith  regard  to  all  the  commandments  enacted 
as  positive  laws,  Jehovah  has  promulgated  a  special  edict  in 
these  words :— "  Ye  shall  not  add  unto  the  word  which  I 
command  you,  neither  shall  ye  diminish  aught  from  it,  that 
ye  may  keep  the  commandments  of  the  Lord  your  God 
which  I  command  you."*  So  important  does  God  regard 
it  to  preserve  his  institution  pure  from  all  change  and  con- 
tamination, that  he  twice  repeats  this  solemn  law,  and  adds 
at  last  a  most  fearful  penalty.  He  says :  "  What  thing 
soever  I  command  you,  observe  to  do  it.  Thou  shalt  not 
add  thereto,  nor  diminish  from  it."t  And,  "  If  any  man 
shall  add  unto  these  things,  God  shall  add  unto  him  the 
plagues  that  are  written  in  this  book  ;  and  if  any  man  shall 
take  away  from  the  words  of  the  book  of  this  prophecy, 
God  shall  take  away  his  part  out  of  the  book  of  life,  and  out 
of  the  holy  city,  and  from  the  things  that  are  written  in  this 
book. "J  Is  infant  baptism  directly  commanded  ?  Its  advo- 
cates themselves  confess  that  it  is  not.  It  is,  then,  directly, 
explicitly,  peremptorily  prohibited,  and  he  who  glares  to 
introduce  it,  or  carry  it  into  practice,  does  so  at  his  peril. 
With  all  these  facts  before  us,  and  witli  our  commou 
*  Deut.  iv.  2.  t  Deut.  xii.  32.  t  Rev.  xxii.  18,  19. 


INFANT  BAPTISM  I'UOIIIBITED.  151 

Baptist  reverence  for  the  word  of  God,  and  the  teachings  of 
his  holy  apostles,  it  is  not  surprising  that  we  should  feel 
shocked  at  the  attempt  of  any  body  of  men,  professing  to 
be  Christians,  to  bring  into  the  church,  not  only  without 
authority  to  do  so,  but  in  direct  opposition  to  the  express 
statute  of  the  divine  word  which  forbids  it,  the  ceremony 
of  infant  baptism,  and  plead  for  it  as  useful  and  obligatory. 
To  such  a  loose  and  licentious  theology  we  cannot  sub- 
scribe. On  the  contrary,  against  it,  in  all  its  parts,  we 
feel  ourselves  bound  to  enter  our  most  earnest  and  solemn 
protest. 

These,  briefly,  are  our  reasons,  and  we  beheve  they  are 
good  and  sufficient  reasons,  for  refusing  to  recognize  the 
rite  as  legitimate  when  administered  in  infancy.  Pedobap- 
tists  have  received  no  other  baptism  but  this,  which  is  a 
nullity.  They  are  not  baptized,  and,  therefore,  we  dare  not, 
until  they  are,  admit  them  to  the  Lord's  table. 


CHAPTER   X. 

WE    CANNOT    COMMUNE   WITH    PEDOBAPTISTS   BECAUSE,  NOT 
HAVING    BEEN    IMMERSED,    THEY    ARE    NOT    BAPTIZED. 

Immersion  only  is  baptism,  proved  by  the  sense  of  the  word — its  phi- 
lology— Its  sense  confessed  by  critics — By  theologians — Ancient 
Confessions  of  Faith — The  English  Liturgy — Use  of  the  word  in  our 
common  translation — Ancient  version  of  the  New  Testament^rea- 
sons  why  it  received  its  present  rendering — Translations  into  He- 
brew— Conclusions. 

Pedobaptists  are  not  baptized  for  other  reasons  than  that 
we  have  now  considered,  and  especially  because,  aUhough 
the  subject  might  have  been  an  aduU,  and  a  behever,  yet  tlie 
ordinance  was  administered  by  sprinkhng,  or  pouring,  which 
is  not,  and  cannot  be  baptism,  therefore,  they  have  not  com- 
pUed  with  the  preUminary  law,  the  oljservance  of  which  is 
expressly  required  to  qualify  them  to  partake  of  the  Lord's 
supper. 

Because  a  proft;ssion  of  religion  is  a  declaration  of  our  faith 
in  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Clu'ist,  and  a  determi- 
nation, by  his  grace,  to  live  a  new  and  holy  life,  and  baptism 
is  the  divinely  appointed  form  in  which  such  profession  is 
required  to  be  made,  therefore,  "  we  are  buried  widi  Christ 
by  baptism  into  dcadi,  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from 
the  dead,  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also,  should 
walk  in  newness  of  life."  To  be  buried  with  Christ  in  bap- 
tism is  to  he  immersed ;  and  afier  mature,  protracted,  and 
anxious  examination,  we  have  arrived  at  the  setded,  and  unrd- 
tcrable  conclusion,  diat  immersion  in  water,  by  an  authorized 
administrator,  of  a  properly  quaiiiied  candidate,  in  the  name 
152 


PEUOiiAl'TlSTS  ARE   NOT   BA!»TIZED.  153 

of  llie  Father,  and  of  tlie  Son,  and  of  the  II')ly  Ghost,  and 
tills  alone,  is  Christian  baptism.  In  proof  of  the  correctness 
of  this  opinion  I  shall  offer  a  few  brief  considerations. 

This  proposition  is  sustained  by  the  meaning  of  the  word 
employed  in  the  New  Testament  to  describe  the  action  of 
baptism. 

The  word  invariably  is  BartT-i^w,  m  some  one  or  other  of 
its  forms.  This  word  is  derived  from  "  Bant<o,  which  signi- 
fies primarily  to  dip,  and  as  a  secondary  meaning  ob^•iously 
derived  from  the  primary,  it  denotes  to  dye.  Every  occur- 
rence of  the  word  may  be  reduced  to  one  or  the  other  of  these 
acceptations.  It  has  been  said  that  it  signifies  to  icabh. 
This  meaning  has  been  given  by  Lexicogi'aphers,  and  is 
admitted  by  Baptists,  but  it  is  not  warranted  by  a  single 
decisive  example  either  in  the  Scriptures,  or  in  classical 
authors."  It  has  also  been  said  that  it  is  a  generic  word, 
and  without  respect  to  mode,  or  exclusive  of  all  modes,  de- 
notes any  application  of  water.  This  idea  is  wdiolly  fanciful. 
Except  when  the  word  signifies  to  dye,  it  denotes  mode  and 
nothing  else. 

The  root  /Bart-r-w,  and  its  derivative  /3artrt^w,  are  often  con- 
sidered as  synonymous.  There  is,  however,  "  a  very  ob- 
vious difference,"  says  Carson,  "  in  the  use  of  the  words ; 
and  a  difference  that  materially  and  naturally  affects  the  point 
now  at  issue."  It  is  this — ".iSa^rco  is  never  used  to  denote 
the  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  ^a^rt^w,"  used  for  this  pur- 
pose, ''never  signifies  to  dye.  The  primary  word  ,3a7trw 
has  two  significations,  the  first  to  dip,  and  the  second  to  dye. 
15ut  the  derivative  is  formed  only  to  modify  the  primary  ; 
and  hi  all  the  Greek  language,  I  assert,  that  an  instance  cannot 
be  found  in  which  it  has  the  secondary  meaning  of  the  primi- 
tive word.  If  this  assertion  is  not  correct  it  will  be  easy  for 
learned  men  to  produce  an  example  in  contradiction.     That 


154  REASONS  FOR  STRICT  COMMUNION. 

pajtt^  is  never  applied  to  the  ordinance  of  })aptism  any  one 
can  verify  who  is  able  to  look  into  the  passages  of  the  Greek 
'I'estamsnt,  which  refer  to  the  ordinance.  The  derivative 
jSartT't^co  is  alone  used  to  describe  the  sacred  ordinance  ,  and 
iji  the  whole  history  of  the  Greek  language,  it  has  bat  one 
meaning ;  it  not  only  means  to  dip  or  immerse,  but  it  never 
has  any  other  meaning."*  If  any  scholar  disputes  this  state- 
ment, let  him  bring  forward  the  passages  that  sustain  him, 
from  the  Septuagint  or  from  the  New  Testament ;  from  any 
of  the  Greek  classics,  such  as  Elian's  Varia  Historia,  the 
Idyls  of  Theocritus,  the  works  of  Aristotle,  of  Aristophanes, 
Sophocles,  Herodotus,  Homer,  Hypocrates,  or  any  others ; 
or  from  any  of  the  Greek  Fathers.  Let  the  passages  be 
produced.  But  the  utmost  eflbrts  of  ages  have  been  exerted, 
and  it  has  not  been  done,  it  cannot  be  done.  If,  therefore, 
any  respect  is  due  to  the  meaning  of  words  used  to  describe 
actions.  Christian  baptism  is  conhned  exclusively  to  immer- 
sion. 

In  these  conclusions,  regarding  the  meaning  of  the  word, 
we  have  the  concurrence,  strange  as  it  m.ay  appear,  of  tlie 
great  and  the  learned,  even  of  the  Pedobaptists  themselves; 
and  given,  too,  with  more  or  less  cheerfulness,  by  men  of  all 
the  leading  denominations  of  Christians.  This  fact  is  as 
true  as  it  is  interesting  and  important,  o-f  wliich  I  shall  at 
once  proceed  to  give  satisfactory  testimony. 

Our  first  witness  shall  be  that  great  man,  before  several 
times  quoted,  whose  name  is  synonymous  with  the  Reforma- 
tion. Martin  Luther,t  remarks  : — "  The  term  baptism  is  a 
Greek  word.  It  may  be  rendered  a  dipping,  as  when  Ave 
dip  something  in  water,  that  it  may  be  entirely  covered  with 
water.  And  though  that  custom  be  utterly  abolished  among 
tlie  generality,  for  neither  do  they  dip  *  *  *  *  •'■'  but  only 
*  Carsoii;  p.  19.  |  Apud  Du  Veil,  on  Acts  viii.  3. 


BAPTISM  IS  IMMERSION.  lo5 

sprinkle  with  a  Utile  water,  nevertheless  tliey  ouglit  to  be 
wholly  immersed,  and  presently  drawn  out  again.  For  the 
etymology  of  the  word  seems  to  require  it.  The  significa- 
tion of  baptism  is,  that  the  old  man  of  our  nativity,  which  is 
full  of  sins,  which  is  entirely  of  flesh  and  blood,  may  be 
overwhelmed  by  divine  grace.  The  manner  of  baptism, 
therefore,  sliould  correspond  with  the  signification  of  baptism, 
that  it  may  show  a  certain  and  plain  sign  of  it."* 

No  Baptist  could  have  expressed  his  own  sentiments  more 
lucidly  than  they  are  here  declared  by  this  distinguished 
man.  The  German  critics,  though  all  Lutherans,  still  main- 
tain the  same  doctrines.  The  necessity  of  consulting  the 
utmost  brevity  will  permit  me  to  present  but  a  single  instance. 
Storr,  who  is  distinguished  alike  by  his  learning  and  candor, 
in  a  late  profound  work  on  Biblical  Theology,  emphatically 
says  : — ^t 

"  The  disciples  of  our  Lord  could  understand  his  com- 
mand in  no  other  manner  than  as  enjoining  immersion." 
He  then  proceeds  to  prove  that,  in  the  fourth  century,  only 
immersion  was  considered  valid  baptism,  and  to  establish  this 
position  he  refers  to  a  case  nan-ated  in  the  sixty-ninth  epistle 
of  Cyprian— Ed.  Bremo.  p.  188 — and  mentions  the  instance 
of  Novatian,  contained  in  the  letter  of  Cornehus,  the  Roman 
bishop,  recorded  in  Eusebius — Eccl.  Hist.  Lib.  vi.  cap.  43. 
Speaking  of  the  modern  practice  of  sprinkling  for  baptism, 

*  "Luther  De  Sacramento  Baptismi" — ^Vide  works,  Genoe  15.56, 
Vol.  i.  p.  336,  "  Primo  nomen  Baptismus  Grsecum  est,  Latiiie  potest 
veiti,  mersio,  cum  immergimus  aliquid  in  aquam,  ut  totum  tegatur 
aqua,  et  quamvis  ille  mos  jam  absoluerit  apud  plaerosque  (neque  enim 
totos  dcmergunt  pueros,  sed  tantum  pancula  aqua  perfundunt)  debebant 
tamen  prorsus  immergi,  et  statim  retrahi.  Id  enim  etymologia  nominis 
postulare  videtur.  Et  Germani  quoque  baptismum  tauff  vocant,  a  pro- 
funditate,  quam  tieff,  illc  sua  lingua  vocant  quod  profunde  demergi 
conveniat  eos  qui  baptiscuntur."" 

t  Andovcr  od.  1S:6,  pp.  290,  291. 


15G  REASONS    FOR   STRICT    COMMUNION. 

Storr  adds  : — "  The  ancient  immersion  ought  not  to  have 
been  changed;"  asserts  that  Luther  himself  was  of  that  opi- 
nion, and  wished  to  restore  the  primitive  practice.  His  words 
are  : — "  It  is  certainly  to  be  lamented  that  Luther  was  not 
able  to  accomplish  his  wish  with  regard  to  the  introduction 
of  immersion  in  baptism,  as  he  had  done  in  the  restoration  of 
wine  in  the  eucharist." 

Our  second  witness  shall  be  the  renowned  Reformer — 
John  Calvin. 

In  his  Institutes  of  Religion,  as  translated  by  Allen,  he 
says : — "  The  word  baptize,  signifies  to  inmierse,  and  it  is 
certain  that  immersion  was  the  practice  of  the  ancient 
church."*  In  several  other  instances  this  great  man  main- 
tained the  same  important  truth.  For  example,  in  his  Com- 
mentary on  John  iii.  23,  and  also  on  Acts  viii.  38 — he  has 
this  remark  : — "  From  these  words  we  perceive  how  ]'»aptism 
was  administered  by  the  ancients,  for  they  hnmersed  the 
whole  Ijody  in  water." 

Our  tliird  witness  shall  be  the  famous  Episcopalian 
writer — Dr.  Wall.  In  his  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  he 
observes : — "  This  is  so  plain  and  clear  [the  necessity 
3f  innnersion  to  baptism]  by  an  infinite  number  of  pas- 
sages, that,  as  we  cannot  but  pity  the  weak  endeavors  of 
such  Pedobaptists  as  would  maintain  the  negative  of  it, 
so  we  ought  to  disown,  and  show  a  dislike  to  the  profane 
scoifs  which  some  people  give  to  the  Antipedobaptists  [Bap- 
tists] merely  for  their  use  of  dipping,  when  it  was,  in  all 
probability,  the  way  in  which  our  blessed  Saviour  was  bap- 
tized, and,  for  certain,  was  the  most  usual  way  by  which  the 
ancient  Christians  did  receive  their  baptism."!  And  in  an- 
other place  Dr.   Wall  adds: — "The  ordinary  and   general 

*  Vol.  iv.  cap.  15,  p.  343. 

t  Hist.Nlnf.  Bap.  vol.  ii.  p.  351. 


TESTIMONY  OF  PEDOnAPTlSTS.  157 

pmcfice  of  John,  the  apostles,  and  the  primitive  church,  was 
to  baptize  by  putting  tlie  person  into  the  water."* 

Take,  as  a  fourth  witness,  the  learned  body  of  divines  who 
composed  the  book  called  '•  'J'he  Assembly's  Catechism.'* 
In  tlieir  Annotations  on  Colossians  ii.  12 — "  Buried  with 
him  in  baptism" — they  say:  "In  this  phrase  the  apostle 
seemeth  to  allude  to  the  ancient  manner  of  haptism,  which 
was  to  dip  the  parties  baptized,  and,  as  it  were,  to  bury 
them  under  the  v/ater." 

The  venerable  John  Wesley  shall  bear  testimony  as  our 
fifth  witness.  He,  with  the  others,  admits  that  baptism  was 
primarily  so  adminisiered.t  In  a  sermon  on  Rom.  vi.  3,  4, 
using  the  language  of  Doddi-idge,  he  observes  :  "  It  seems  the 
part  of  candor  to  confess  that  here  is  an  allusion  to  the  man- 
ner of  baptizing  by  immersion."^  Dr.  Adam  Clark,  in  his 
note  on  the  same  passage,  says :  "  It  is  probable  that  the 
apostle  here  alludes  to  the  mode  of  administering  baptism  by 
immersion,  the  v/liole  body  being  put  under  the  water." 

The  most  ancient  Confessions  of  Faith  and  Directories 
speak  on  this  subject  in  perfect  accordance  with  what  we 
ha\'e  now  seen  to  be  the  sense  of  the  word,  and  the  under- 
standing of  the  most  learned  even  of  Pedobaptists,  as  to  the 
form  of  Ijaptism.  In  illustration  of  this  remark,  we  submit 
two  01  three  instances. 

The  Helvetic  Confession  of  Faith,  drawn  up  by  Bucer, 
in  1536,  for  the  use  of  the  Protestant  churches  in  Switzer- 
land, ten  years  before  the  death  of  Luther,  and  republished 
by  the  Pastors  of  Zurich,  has  this  passage  :  "  Baptism  was 
instituted  and  consecrated  by  God,  and  the  first  that  baptized 
was  John,  who  dipped  Christ  in  the  water  in  Jordan." 

*  Defence  of  Inf.  Bap.  p.  129. 

t  I  do  not  intend  to  intimate  that  any  of  these  .vitaesses  thought 
nothing  baptism  but  immersion. 

X  Family  Expositor.     Note  in  loco. 

14 


158  REASONS    FOR    STRICT    COMMUNION. 

Ill  the  Confession  of  Faith,  written  by  Melancthon,  in 
1551,  and  adopted  by  the  Saxon  churches,  he  says  :  "  Bap- 
tism is  an  entire  action,  to  wit,  a  dipping,  and  a  pronouncing 
these  words — I  baptize  you,"  &c. 

The  first  Liturgy  of  the  Englisli — Episcopal — cliurch  was 
drawn  up  in  1547,  in  which  Augusti  says:  "Trine  immor- 
sioii  was  enjoined."*  At  the  commencement  of  tJie  reign 
of  James  II.  the  Liturgy  was  revised,  and  the  rubric  thrown 
into  its  present  form,  which  runs  thus — "  Then  tlie  priest 
shall  take  the  cliild  into  liis  hands,  and  ask  the  name,  and 
naming  the  child,  sliall  dip  it  in  the  water,  so  it  be  discreetly 
and  warily  done,  saying— N.,  I  baptize  thee,"  &c.t 

We  may  now  be  permitted  to  oI)serve,  that  not  only  is 
the  word  employed  perfecdy  and  confessedly  definite,  but 
such  is  the  rich  variety  of  the  Greek  language,  in  which  the 
New  Testament  is  written,  that  a  different  term  is  used  for 
every  possible  application  of  water,  whether  for  sacred  or 
any  other  purposes,  such  as  ^atvw,  ^airt^co,  fxxf^i  viriTu),  xo'jw, 
TiXvi'cc,  ftartrcd,  f^arf-Tt^w,  ayvL^<^,  xaSat^co,  and  a  few  Others.  Some 
of  these  words  express  different  actions,  and  others  the  same 
action  with  regard  to  different  ol^jects,  but  all  describe  the 
application  of  water  for  different  purposes.  It  is  inconsistent 
with  our  conceptions  of  the  wisdom  and  benevolence  of  God, 
as  taught  by  his  holy  word,  to  presume  for  a  moment  that 
in  his  blessed  revelation,  respecting  the  instructions  of  which 
it  is  so  necessary  for  us  to  have  correct  ideas,  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  did  not  use  words  with  the  utmost  precision  of  import. 
Among  so  many  words,  in  the  richest  and  most  copious  lan- 
guage which  ever  existed,  is  there  not  one  so  delinite  to 
describe  the  acdon  of  baptism,  that  we  may  certainly  know 
precisely  what  that  action  is  ?     Let  us  take  up  our  common 

*  Dunkewarcl,  p.  229.  t  Prayer  Book,  Lond,  ed.  1G39. 


SPRINKLING  AND  POURING    NOT  BAPTISM.  159 

translation,  and  compare  it  Avith  the  Greek  original,  and  we 
shall  find  the  following  interesting  results.  In  the  origuial 
we  shall  see  that  the  word  to  sprinkle  occurs  sixty-two  times; 
the  word  to  pour,  and  its  derivatives,  a  hundred  and  fifty-two 
limes  ;  to  wash,  and  its  derivatives,  a  hundred  and  thirty-nine 
times  ;  to  dip,  with  its  derivatives,  twenty-two  times  ;  and  to 
pkmge,  once.  Let  this  inquiry  be  now  answered — Did  the 
translators,  in  a  single  instance,  render  the  word  which  means 
to  immerse,  to  sprinkle  ?  Not  an  example  can  be  found. 
Did  they  ever  translate  the  same  word  to  pour  and  to  im- 
merse ?  Never.  Did  they,  in  any  case,  translate  /SaTttt^w 
to  sprinkle  or  to  pour  ?  Never.  And  not  an  instance  occurs 
in  which  ^aivu,  or  ^avti^io,  is  translated  to  baptize,  to  dip,  or 
to  plunge.  Are  not  these  instructive  facts  ?  In  the  judg- 
ment of  our  translators,  these  words  are  so  definitely  expres- 
sive of  certain  and  fixed  actions,  that  they  never  could  be 
rendered  into  our  language  by  one  and  the  same  word,  and 
if  not,  the  actions  they  describe  cannot  be  one  and  the  same 
action.  How  then  can  baptism  be  performed  indifier- 
ently  by  sprinkling,  pouring,  or  immersion  ?  It  is  impos- 
sible. To  sprinkle,  therefore,  is  one  action,  and  to  baptize 
is  another  and  a  very  different  action.  To  pour  is  one 
action,  and  to  baptize  is  another  and  a  very  different  action. 
To  sprinkle  and  to  pour  so  nearly  resemble  each  other,  and 
in  effect  are  so  much  the  same,  that  ^at^w,  and  the  compounds 
of  fxz^^,  are  both  rendered  to  sprinkle,  but  so  impassal:)le  is 
the  g-ulf  between  pouring  and  sprinkling,  and  baptism,  thst 
never  once  is  either  ^atru,  ?.odw,  or  fx;tfw,  or  uTtrw,  or  Tf/.wiOj 
translated  to  baptize — to  dip,  or  immerse.  How,  therefore, 
can  sprinkling  or  pouring  be  baptism  ?  It  cannot  be,— it  is 
impossible. 

Had  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  dictating  his  revelation,  designed 
to  leave  upon  our  mind  an  indefinite  impression,  which 


160  REASONS    FOR    STRICT    COMMUNION. 

doubtless  would  have  been  tlie  case,  had  he,  as  our  Ped< 
baptist  brethren  are  wont  to  tell  us,  intended  to  conline  baj"  • 
tism  to  no  particular  mode,  he  would  not  have  adopted 
^urttL^i^  as  the  word  to  describe  it,  lest  immersion  should  be 
understood ;  nor  exxi^^y  lest  pouring  should  have  been  supposed 
to  be  the  action  prescribed ;  nor  would  he  have  chosen  gatfw, 
lest  sprinkhng  should  have  been  considered  as  enjoined ;  but 
he  would  have  selected  some  word,  not,  as  is  true  of  that 
used,  denoting  mode  and  nothing  else,  but  having  reference 
to  the  effect  rather  than  the  action.  Was  any  such  word  at 
command  ?  Instantly  upon  the  suggestion  of  the  inquiry, 
are  presented  to  our  mind,  ayrt^w,  to  purify,  and  xd9at^u>,  to 
cleanse,  in  any  convenient  method  of  applying  water.  But 
the  Holy  Spirit  did  not  adopt  an  indefinite  term.  He  did 
not,  therefore,  command  an  indefinite  action  to  be  performed. 
The  word  used  cannot,  in  any  possible  case,  mean  to  sprin- 
kle or  to  pour ;  therefore  it  is  impossible  that  baptism  ever 
can  be  performed  by  sprinkling  or  pouring.  The  term 
selected  by  the  Saviour  conveys  always  the  definite  idea  of 
immersion,  therefore  God  will  regard  only  immersion  as 
Christian  baptism. 

Having  now  seen  that  the  word  which  describes  this  ordi- 
nance means  immersion  and  nothing  else,  and  that  to  this 
definition  the  learned  world,  ancient  and  modern,  substanUally 
give  their  full  sanction ;  and  that  in  the  Bible  it  is  so  employ- 
ed as  never,  in  any  instance,  to  be  capable  of  expressing  the 
idea  of  pouring  or  sprinkling,  we  shall  probably  be  asked, 
why,  then,  our  translators  of  tlie  Bible  did  not  honesdy  ren- 
der it  to  immerse,  and  save  all  the  ill  will  and  confusion 
which  have  grown  out  of  the  controversy  ?  The  history  of 
this  matter  is  singular,  and  deserves  in  this  place,  a  moment's 
attention. 

In.  all  the  best  ancient  translations,  and  those  also  of  more 


PEDOBAPTISTS    ARE    NOT    BAITIZED.  161 

modsm  date,  in  wliich  the  example  of  England  has  not  been 
foUoweil,  the  word  BartTi^^  has  been  rendered  by  terms  m  the 
several  lan^iages  which  mean  to  immerse,  and,  as  all  learned 
men  are  fully  aware,  immersion  is,  at  this  moment,  and  ever 
has  been,  the  practice  of  the  greater  part  of  the  Christian 
world.     The  amplest  evidence  of  the  following  facts  in  rela- 
tion to  the  several  n-anslations  of  the  Scriptures,  is  accessible, 
in  some  form,  to  almost  every  reader.*     In  the  translation  of 
the  Scriptures  into  the  old  Syriac,  or  Feshito,  which  was 
made  in  the  beginning  of  the  second  century,  the  word 
Ba.-trtCw  is  rendered  by  am  ad — to  immerse.     The  Coptic,  or 
Egyptian,  made  in  the  second  century,  has  to>ias — to  im- 
merse.    The  Suhidic,  the  language  spoken  in  Upper  Egypt, 
made  in  the  same  century,  has  it,  to  immerse.     In  Ethiopic, 
or  Abyssinian,  made  in  the  fourth  century,  the  word  is  ren- 
dered by  tamak — to  immerse.     The  Arnharac,  a  language 
descended  from  the  Ethiopic,  has  the  same  word.     Tlie  an- 
cient Armenian  version,  made  in  the  fourth  century,  has 
MUGURDEL — to  immerse.     The  modern  Armenian  has  the 
same  word.     The  Georgian,  made  in  the  eighth  century, 
has   NATiiLisTEMAD — ^to   immersc.     The   Arabic   version, 
made  in  the  eighth  century,  has   amad — to  immerse.     The 
same  facts  are  true  of  tlie   Persian,  Turkish,  Tartar,  and 
many  other  Eastern  languages.     In  regard  to  the  Western 
versions,  I  remark  that  the  Gothic  of  Ulphilus,  made  in  the 
fourth  century,  has  daupyan — to  dip.     The  German  trans- 
lation by  Luther,  has  taufen — to  dip.     The  same  Avord  is 
used  in  both  the  Swiss  and  Saxon  translations.     The  Bel- 
gian version,  made  by  order  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  has 
DooPEX — to  dip.     The  Danish  has  dobe — to  dip.     The 
Swedish  lias  dopa — to  dip.     The  Welch  has  bedyddio — 
to  dip  ;  and  so  of  several  others.     Even  the  English  dared 

*  Judd'3  Review  of  Stewart,  p,  163,  et  seq. 

14- 


1G2  REASONS    FOR    STRICT    COMMUNION. 

not  to  translate  the  term  by  any  other  word  than  to  immerse 
or  dip,  and  as  they  would  not  give  either  of  these,  for  rea- 
sons we  shall  presently  show,  they  refused  any  translation 
whatever. 

When  the  English  Church  emerged  from  Popery,  which 
had  bound  the  Western  nations  for  so  many  centuries  in  her 
heavy  chains,  she  made,  in  several  pardculars,  commendable, 
though  somewhat  tardy,  advances  towards  more  purity  both  of 
doctrine  and  practice :  yet  she  retained,  and  does  still  retain, 
many  things  which  had  found  both  their  origin  and  support 
alone  in  that  corrupt  hierarchy.  Edward  VI.,  the  son  and 
successor  of  Henry  VIIL,  appointed  a  committee  of  Bishops 
to  reform  sdll  further  than  his  father  had  done,  the  offices 
of  the  church.  "  In  the  prosecution  of  this  work,"  says 
Neal,  in  his  History  of  the  Puritans,  "  die  committee  ex- 
amined and  compared  the  Bomiah  Missals  of  Sarum,  York, 
Hereford,  Bangor,  and  Lincoln,  and  out  of  them  composed  the 
Morning  and  Evening  service,  almost  in  the  same  form  as  it 
now  stands.  From  the  same  materials  they  compiled  a  Litany 
— the  same  with  that  now  used."  This  was  not  ah  the  Eng- 
lish church  retained  from  popery ;  she  also  adopted  all  her 
Ecclesiastical  orders  and  vestments,  infant  church  member- 
ship, and,  in  some  instances,  sprinkling  for  baptism.  Ah  diese 
had  been  received  into  the  English  church  before  the  present 
version  of  the  Scriptures  was  made.  It  is  necessary  to  re- 
member this  in  order  to  understand  the  policy  of  the  parties 
concerned,  and  the  reasons  why  they  refused  to  allow  any 
translation  to  go  forth,  which  should  expose  to  the  public 
mind  the  unscriptural  character  of  these  emanations  of  po- 
pery. Tiiey  constituted  the  basis  upon  which  stood  the  very 
offices  tliat  had  made  them  great,  and  given  them  honor, 
dignity,  and  emolument.  The  Bishops,  with  the  consent  of 
King  James,  prohibited,  therefore,  the  translation  of  all  "  the 


BAPTIZE    NOT  TRANSLATED.  163 

old  ecclesiastical  words,"  among  wliich  willi  olliers  baptlam 
was  found.  'J'hey  required  that  tlie  original  Greek  words 
ghould  be  transferred,  only  changing  ihem  so  much  as  to  give 
them  an  English  termination.  Thus  the  word  baplimn  ob- 
tained admission  into  the  version,  and  ijnmersion,  the  true 
rendering,  was  excluded  from  our  Bible.  In  testimony  of 
these  facts,  I  refer  to — "A  complete  History  of  the  several 
translations  of  the  Holy  Bible  and  New  Testament  into  Eng- 
lish," by  John  Lewis,  A.  M.,  &c.,  London  ed.  1813.  At  p. 
317,  (fee,  we  have  a  copy  "  of  his  Majesty's  instructions" — 
also  contained  in  Fuller's  Church  History,  book  x.  pp.  46, 
47 — the  third  article  of  which  is  in  these  terms : — "  Tlie 
old  ecclesiastical  words  to  be  kept,  as  the  w^ord  church,  &c." 
In  giving  the  preface  of  the  translators,  Mr.  Lewis  represents 
them  as  saying" — "  They  had,  they  said,  on  the  one  side, 
avoided  the  scrupulosity  of  the  Puritans,  who  left  the  old 
ecclesiastical  words,  and  betook  them  to  others,  (i.  e.  trans- 
lated them)  as  when  they  put  ivashing  for  baptism^  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  had  shunned  the  obscuritie  of  the  Papists  in 
their  azymes,  tunike,  rational,  holocaust,  prepuce,  pasche, 
and  a  number  such  like."  Of  this  course  on  the  part  of  the 
translators,  there  was  much  complaint  at  the  time,  and  several 
books  written,  among  the  best  of  which  was  one  by  John 
Canne — 1664 — in  which  he  insists  upon  yet  another  and 
more  faithful  version,  and  among  many  other  deficiencies 
to  be  remedied — p.  343 — says,  referring  to  these  terms — 
"  Some  words  which  are  in  the  original  tongues  left  untrans- 
lated, should  be  translated,  and  their  signification  opened." 
But  when  the  temporal  interests  of  men  come  in  conflict 
with  any  portion  of  divine  truth,  how  prone  is  poor  human 
nature  to  sacrifice  the  latter  to  advance  the  former  ! 

A  scene  similar  to  this  has  been  acted  over  again,  in  our 

*  P.  326. 


164  REASONS   FOR   STRICT    COMMUNION. 

own  day.  "  When  the  London  Society  for  promoting  Chris- 
aanity  among  the  Jews,"  says  Mr.  Frey,  an  eminent  Hebrew 
scholar,  who  was  then  a  Pedobaptist,  and,  at  the  time  Presi- 
dent of  the  Society* — "  commenced  the  translation  of  the 
New  Testament  into  pure  Hebrew,  they  soon  met  with  the 
word  under  consideration,  and  which  occasioned  not  a  little 
difiicLilty.  Not  with  respect  to  the  primary  meaning  of  the 
word,  nor  to  find  out  a  corresponding  Hebrew  word,  but  the 
diiliculty  was  to  avoid  giving  offence.  Had  tliey  adopted  the 
word  taval — or  tabal — to  immerse,  *****-  whilst  they 
would  have  done  justice  to  the  text,  they  would  have  given 
ofl'ence  to  the  mass  or  bulk  of  Pedobaptists  ;  on  the  other 
hand,  had  they  used  the  word  shaphach — to  pour,  or  zarak 
•^to  sprinkle,  besides  doing  violence  to  the  original,  they 
would  not  only  have  given  offence  to  the  whole  large  and  re- 
spectable body  of  Baptists,  but  even  many  pious  and  consci- 
entious Pedobaptists  would  have  condemned  their  conduct. 
Policy,  therefore,  led  them  not  to  translate  the  word  at  all, 
but"  [as  their  predecessors  had  done  with  regard  to  the 
English  translation]  "  to  metamorphose  the  Greek  ^vord 
into  Hebrew,  for  the  use  of  the  text,  and  in  the  margin  they 
put  the  words  taval,  to  immerse,  and  r achat z,  to  wash  ;  but 
nowhere  did  they  use  the  words  shaphach,  to  pour,  or  zarak, 
to  sprinkle."  A  more  recent  attempt,  by  the  British  and 
Foreign,  and  the  American  Bible  Societies,  to  engraft  upon 
the  Foreign  Translations  now  in  process,  and  heretofore 
made  by  Missionaries,  these  Pedobaptist  corruptions,  has 
severed  them  both,  and  they  will  ultimately  meet  the  fate 
which  will,  sooner  or  later,  involve  every  effort  to  falsify,  or 
conceal,  the  teachings  of  the  word  of  God.  The  Jewish  So- 
ciety, in  their  late  translation  of  the  New  Testament  into  the 
Polish  Hebrew  dialect,  have,  as  I  am  informed,  pursued  a 

*  Essays  on  Bap.  1st  ed.  pp.  74,  75. 


pedobaptists  are  not  baptized.  165 

diflbrcnt  course.  Here  the  word  taval  is,  in  the  text,  inva- 
riably adopted. 

The  arguments  of  our  Pedobaptist  brethren,  founded  on 
tlie  use  of  the  preposition  with  whicli  the  verb  is  connected, 
and  by  which  they  seek  to  turn  aside  the  force  of  the  word 
3artTtC",  might  now  be  noticed,  but  I  do  not  consider  them 
of  sufficient  importance  to  merit  more  than  a  passing  remark. 
Every  one  knows,  who  has  thought  or  read  at  all  on  the  use 
of  prepositions,  that  their  meaning  is  subordinate  to  the  prin- 
cipal words  in  the  sentence  in  which  they  occur.  If  it  is 
only  said  that  a  man  went  to  the  river,  we  should  have  no 
evidence  that  he  went  into  it.  But  if  it  is  said  he  went  to 
the  river  and  bathed,  we  at  once  know  he  went  into  the 
water.  So  in  relation  to  the  prepositions y/-o??7,  and  out  of. 
Were  you  informed  that  your  friend,  having  been  immersed, 
came  up  from  the  water,  you  could  not  resist  the  conviction 
that  he  had  bathed  in  the  stream.  AVhatever,  therefore,  may 
be  the  sense  of  er,  and  ft?,  sx,  and  arto,  it  cannot  weaken,  in 
the  slightest  degree,  the  force  of  the  Avord  employed  by  the 
inspired  writers  to  describe  the  form  of  baptism. 

\^'^e  have  now  demonstrated,  from  the  philology  of  the 
word  used  to  describe  it,  that  immersion  is  essential  to  the 
rite,  and  that  without  it  there  can  be  no  baptism.  Our  Pe- 
dobaptist brethren  have  not  been  immersed,  therefore  diey 
nave  not  been  baptized,  and  consequently  cannot  approach 
the  Lord's  table  without  a  violation  of  the  di\'ine  law. 


CHAPTER  XL 

WE  CANNOT    COMMUNE    AVITH    PEDOBAPTISTS,  BECAUSE,    NOT 
HAVING    BEEN    IMMERSED,    THEY    ARE    NOT    BAPTIZED. 

Objections  to  our  conclusions  founded  on  the  New  Testament  refuted^ 
Facts  considered — Passages  of  Scripture — Metaphorical  allusions  to 
baptism — The  design  of  baptism  requires  immersion — The  places 
where  baptism  was  administered — Concurrence  in  our  views  by 
scholars — Reasons  of  their  agreement  with  us  in  sentiment,  and 
different  practice — Conclusion. 

Several  facts  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  as  well  as 
various  passages,  which  relate  to  the  ordinance,  it  is  confi- 
dently maintained  by  many  persons,  forbid  the  belief  that 
baptism  was  invariably,  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  adminis- 
tered by  immersion.  These,  before  I  dismiss  this  part  of 
our  subject,  I  consider  myself  obliged  briefly  to  examine. 

It  is  alleged  that  the  three  thousand  baptized  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost  could  not  have  been  immersed.  For  this  opinion 
two  principal  reasons  have  been  assigned.  The  first  is,  that 
there  was  not  a  sufficient  number  of  administrators  to  have 
performed  the  work  in  one  day ;  and  the  second  is,  that 
water  for  the  purpose  could  not  have  been  found  in  sufficient 
quantity. 

In  regard  to  the  supposed  difficulty  of  baptizing  so  many, 
I  observe,  that  three  thousand  candidates  would  have  given 
to  each  one  of  the  twelve  apostles  two  hundred  and  fifty.  I 
find  by  my  own  experience,  that,  proceeding  with  the  utmost 
deliberation,  I  usually  baptize  three  in  a  minute.  But  sup- 
pose the  apostles  only  baptized  two  in  a  minute.  They 
would  baptize  the  whole  in  a  hundred  and  twenty-five  niin- 
16(3 


BAPTISM  AT  PENTECOST.  167 

utes — tliat  is,  in  two  lioiirs  and  five  minutes.  Or  if  they 
baptized  three  in  a  minute,  the  twelve  apostles  alone  baptized 
the  whole  three  thousand  in  one  hour  and  twenty  minutes. 

But  besides  the  twelve  apostles,  there  were  seventy  disci- 
ples, authorized  to  baptize,  mailing  in  all  eighty-two  adminis- 
trators, present  on  the  occasion.  Now  divide  three  thousand 
candidates  between  eighty-two  administrators,  and  you  give 
to  each  one  about  thirty-six,  all  of  whom  could  have  been 
baptized,  with  perfect  deliberation,  in  less  dian  fifteen  minutes. 
The  case,  therefore,  presents  not  tlie  least  difficvdty.  And  if 
iLdid,  the  objection  lies  rather  against  the  trudi  of  the  state- 
ment of  Luke,  diat  so  many  were  baptized,  than  diat  immersion 
could  have  been  the  mode.  This  will  be  seen  the  moment 
the  fact  is  recollected,  which  every  one  knows  who  has  wit- 
nessed or  administered  the  ordinance,  that,  in  a  given  space 
of  time,  as  many,  and  with  the  same  ease,  can  be  immersed 
as  can  be  poured  upon,  or  sprinkled. 

The  supposition  that  water,  in  sufficient  quantity,  could 
not  have  been  obtained  in  or  about  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  to 
baptize  so  many,  is  scarcely  worthy  of  attention.  What ! 
A  city,  with  probably  more  than  a  million  of  inhabitants, 
whose  religion  required  of  every  one  daily  ablutions,  in  tha 
midst  of  which  were  several  large  reservoirs  for  these  very 
purposes,  as  the  pools  of  Siloam  and  Bethesda ;  with  a  con- 
siderable stream — the  Gihon,  running  through  it — another,  a 
branch  of  the  Gihon — surrounding  th.e  end  of  it ;  and  the 
Cedron  laving  its  walls  through  the  whole  extent  of  one 
side ;  that  such  a  city  sliould  not  contain  v»-ater  enough  to 
immerse  a  few  hwidred  people  is  surely  a  dream,  that  never 
could  have  found  admittance  into  any  but  a  distempered  ima- 
gination. The  school  geograpliy  of  a  cliild  will  teach  any 
one  that  for  s^ch  a  purpose  there  could,  in  the  holy  city,  have 
been  no  wimt  of  an  abundance  of  water. 


ins  REASON'S    FOIl    STRICT    COMMT'NJOIV. 

It  is  a  little  remarkal>lc,  however,  after  all  the  ar;^imente 
on  tliis  subject,  that  wlien  we  turn  to  tlie  inspired  writers  we 
find  that  they  do  not  say  that  three  thousand  were  baptized 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost !  Tliey  that  gladly  received  the 
word  were  baptized  ;  but  how  many  there  were  of  these  we 
are  not  informed ;  and  that  day  there  were  added  unto  them 
about  three  thousand;  many  of  whom  might  previously 
have  been  baptized  by  John,  and  the  disciples,  and  on  that 
occasion  have  been  collected  togetlier,  emboldened  by  the 
pouring  out  of  the  Spirit,  and  recognized  as  forming  a  part 
of  the  church,  that  they  might  the  more  distinctly  be  known 
to  each  other,  and  to  the  world,  as  the  followers  of  Christ. 
But  that  this  number  was  baptized  on  that  day  we  have  no 
evidence  whatever. 

n  is  again  objected  that  baptism  could  not  always  have 
been  administered  by  immersion,  because  the  Philippian 
jailer  must  have  been  baptized  in  the  house,  where  this  form 
of  the  ordinance  could  not  have  been  observed. 

Why  should  it  be  supposed  that  the  jailer  was  baptized 
in  the  house  ?  Do  the  Scriptures  say  so  ?  Examine  the 
passage — "  Then  he  called  for  a  light,  and  sprang  in,  and 
came  trembling,  and  fell  down  before  Paul  and  Silas,  and 
brought  them  out,  and  said — Sirs  :  what  must  I  do  to  be 
saved  ?  And  they  said — Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and  thy  house.  And  they  spake 
imto  him  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his 
house.  And  he  took  them  the  same  hour  of.  the  night,  and 
washed  their  stripes,  and  was  baptized^  he,  and  all  his  house, 
straightway ;  and  when  he  had  broiight  them  into  his 
houae,  he  sat  meat  before  them,  and  rejoiced,  believing  in 
God,  with  all  his  house."* 

Several  particulars  in  this  narrative  deserve  attention. 

*  Acts  xvi.  29-34. 


BAPTISM  OF  THE  JAILER.  1G9 

tho  first  place,  the  jailer  brouglit  Paul  aiid  Silas  out  of  the 
prison,  before  they  began  their  discourse.  He  brought  them 
out.  Where  did  he  carry  them?  Undoubtedly  into  his 
own  house  where  his  fainily  resided.  In  proof  of  this  fact 
it  will  be  observed  it  is  expressly  said — They  spake  unto 
kiia  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  tvere  in  his  house. 
'J'hey  were  now,  therefore,  in  the  jailer's  house.  Immedi- 
ately on  their  profession,  it  is  added: — "He  was  baptized, 
and  all  his  house  straightway ;  and  when  he  had  brought 
them  into  his  house,  he  rejoiced."  This  is  now  the  second 
time  he  had  brought  them  into  his  house.  They  had  pre- 
viously come  out  of  the  prison,  and  they  went  out  of  the 
house  to  be  baptized,  and  after  the  baptism  retin-ned.  All 
this  the  passage  declares.  This  event  took  place  at  midnight. 
If  sprinlding  or  pouring  was  ever  used,  this,  certainly,  was  a 
proper  occasion  for  it.  But  it  was  most  convenient  to  have 
done  this  in  the  house.  Why  then,  under  such  circumstances, 
and  at  such  an  hour,  should  they  have  gone  out  of  doors  to 
administer  this  baptism,  if  immersion  had  not  been  essen- 
tial to  the  ordinance  ?  The  whole  narrative  is  inconsistent 
with  the  idea  tliat  any  form  but  immersion  was  employed. 

But  we  are  told  that  washing  and  sprinlding  must  be  bap- 
tism, because  that  the — Sta^o^ot^  paTttt^uot^ — divers  baptisms, 
tmnslated,  in  our  version,  divei-s  toashings,  of  wliich  Paul 
speaks  ^' — "  WHiich  stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks,  and 
diuers  zvashlngs,  and  carnal  ordinances,  imposed  on  them 
until  the  time  of  reformation" — included  the  washino-  of 
various  vessels,  and  other  utensils,  and  the  sprinkling  of  the 
priests  for  their  consecration,  as  descriljed  in  Numbersf — 
"  Tiius — saith  the  Lord — thou  shalt  do  unto  them  to  cleanse 
them,  sprinkle  wator  of  pr.rifying  upon  them." 

In  reply,  I  observe,  tliat  divers  immersions  were  certainly 

*  Heb.  ix.  10,  t  Numbers  viii.  6,  7. 

15 


170  REASONS    For.    STRICT    COMMTNIOM. 

used  by  the  Jews,  and  that  Paul  in  this  passage  int-Iuded  the 
idi;a  of  lavhijr  cups,  and  sprinkUnjr  priests  with  baptism,  is  all 
imaginary,  and  destitute  of  reason  or  authority.  Tlie  most 
learned  Pedobaplists  themselves  translate  these  very  words—. 
Sia-jio^otj  jSartritjfiorj — not  "  divei-s  washings,"  but  "  divers  im- 
meraions,'^  among  whom  I  would  name  Grotius,  Whitby, 
and  Mackniglit — "  Divers  immersions,  and  ordinances  con- 
cerning the  ilesh."  This  v/holc  matter  is  easily  made  plain. 
The  reader  h;is  but  to  notice  that,  in  tlie  text,  three  distinct 
classes  of  injunctions  are  inculcated.  In  the  first,  the  Jews 
were  to  worsliip  God  in  meats  and  drinks ;  in  tlie  second 
tluiy  were  to  worship  him  in  various  hmnersions  ;  and  in 
tlie  third  by  carnal  ordinances,  imposed  on  them  until  the 
coming  of  Christ.  All  that  it  concerns  us  to  know  is  in 
what  these  divers  immersions  consisted,  and  this  Moses  him- 
self explains.*  "And  upon  whatsoever  a  dead  Aveascl, 
mouse,  tortoise,  ferret,  lizard,  chameleon,  snail,  or  mole,  doth 
fall,  it  shall  be  unclean  ;  wliclher  any  vessel  of  wood,  or 
raiment,  or  skin,  or  sack ;  whatsoever  vessel  it  be  wherein 
any  work  is  done,  it  shall  be  put  into  roatcr,  and  it  shall  be 
unclean  until  the  even ;  so  it  shall  be  cleansed" — by  immer- 
sion. Here  then  are  divers  immersions,  and  frequent  occa- 
sions for  them.  The  general  rule  by  which  these  immersions 
were  conducted  is  recorded  in  Numbers  :t — "  Every  thing 
that  may  abide  the  fire,  ye  shall  make  to  go  through  the  fire, 
and  it  shall  be  cleansed  ;  yet  il  must  be  purified  by  the  water 
of  separation ;  and  all  that  abideth  not  the  fire  ye  shall  make 
go  through  the  welter^ 

The  sense  of  the  apostle,  however,  is  definitely  scllled  l>y 
the  apostle  himself,  in  die  sama  chapter  in  which  the  passiige 
occurs.  The  moment  you  take  up  the  orL'^ind  you  sec  that 
Paul  contradistinguishes  between  t!ic  divers  baptisms,  and 

*  Lcvit.  xi.  32,  &.C.  t  N-iiin'jcrs  xxxi.  23. 


PUUIFICATIONS  UNDER  THE  LAAV.  171 

the  (livers  sprinklings  of  which  he  treats.  When  he  speaks 
of  the  immersions  he  uses  the  word  ^o.7itia^oii :  but  he  im- 
mediately after  has  occasion  to  spealc  of  sprinlding,  and  ho 
drops  this  word  and  employs  ^aft t^w,  the  proper  word  de 
noting  that  action.  "  For  if  the  blood  of  bulls,  and  of  goats, 
and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer,  sprinkliiig — parTt^ovsa — the  un- " 
clean,  &;c."*  Verse  19 — Moses  "  sprinkled — sppav^'tcfs — both 
the  book,  and  all  the  people."  And  again,  m  verse  21 — He 
"  sprinkled — sppai'T'tcff — likewise  with  blood  both  the  taberna- 
cle, and  all  the  vessels  of  the  ministry."  Thus  we  prove 
that  in  the  opinion  of  Paul  baptism  does  not  mean  to  wash 
or  to  sprinkle.  If  he  did  not  think  so,  or  intended  by  the 
word  baptism  in  the  10th  verse  to  convey  the  idea  of  sprink- 
ling, why  does  he  drop  that  v/ord  and  use  another  in  three 
successive  instances  in  the  same  chapter  when  he  speaks  of 
sprinlding  ?  We  must  be  blind,  mdeed,  if  we  do  not  see 
that  Paul  makes  a  difference  between  the  purifying  of  the 
cups,  and  other  utensils,  which  was  by  immersing  them,  and 
the  sprinkling  of  the  priests,  which  he  calls  a  carnal  com- 
mandment. He  sayst — The  Jewish  priests  were  made 
after  the  law  of  a  carnal  commandment — they  were,  if  you 
please,  sprinkled ;  but  our  great  High  Priest,  the  Lord  Jesus, 
was  made  a  priest,  not  after  such  a  law — he  was  not  sprin- 
kled. In  his  opinion,  therefore,  die  baptisms  are  immersions, 
Lnd  the  sprinklmgs  are  carnal  ordinances. 

Some  metaphorical  allusions  found  in  the  Scriptures  to 
the  sacrament  of  baptism,  are  supposed  to  have  an  important 
bearing  in  deciding  in  \vhat  manner  the  ordinance  is  to  be 
administered. 

"  The  long  suffering  of  God,"  says  Peter,  "  waited  in  the 
days  of  Noah,  while  the  ark  was  a  preparing,  wherein  few, 
that  is  eight  souls,  were  saved  by  water.     The  like  figure 

*  Heb.  ix.  13.  t  Ileb.  viii.  IG. 


172  RKASONS  FOR  STRICT  COiMMUNlON. 

whercunto  baptism  cloth  even  now  save  us,  not  tlie  putting 
away  of  the  lUtli  of  llie  ilesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  con- 
seit'iice  towards  God,  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ."* 

On  tliis  passiige  I  make  three  remarks.  In  the  first  place, 
it  is  a  ngiire.  A  figure,  to  render  it  such,  must,  necessarily, 
difler  from  the  thing  which  it  represents.  Secondly,  the 
preservation  of  Noah  and  his  family,  in  the  ark,  from  the 
consequences  of  the  deluge,  is  as  nearly  like  an  immersion  as 
any  figure  need  be  to  the  thing  illustrated  by  it.  They  were 
enclosed  in  the  ark.  In  this  consisted  the  metaphor,  and  not, 
as  some  have  supposed,  in  the  sprinkling  of  the  rain  upon 
the  ark.  If  die  sprinkling  of  the  rain  upon  the  ark  was  the 
baptism,  it  was  the  ark  which  was  baptized,  and  not  the 
people  in  the  ark.  Thirdly,  as  Noah  and  his  family  ob- 
tained a  temporal  salvation  in  the  ark,  so  we  obtain  a  spiri- 
tual salvation  by  Jesus  Christ,  of  whose  dcatli,  burial,  and 
resurrection  from  the  dead,  our  baptism  is  a  figure.  This 
undoubtedly  is  a  true  exposition  of  the  passage  before  us. 
It  is  admitted  to  be  such  by  Pedobaptists  themselves.  If 
so,  it  forbids,  as  far  as  it  has  any  influence  on  the  subject, 
the  ielea  that  any  thing  is  baptism  but  such  an  immersion 
as  encloses  the  candidate  in  water  as  thorouglily  as  Noah 
and  his  family  were  enclosed  in  the  ark.  Such  is  the  opin- 
ion of  Sir  N.  KnatchbuU,  who  says,  in  his  Animadversions 
— '*  The  proper  end  of  baptism  is  the  sign  of  a  resuiTcction, 
by  faith  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  of  which  baptism  is  a 
very  lively  and  expressive  figure  ;  also  as  the  ark  of  Noah, 
out  of  which  he  returned,  as  it  were,  out  of  a  sepulchre  to  a 
new  life."t 

Another  passage  of  similar  character  is  found  in  2  Cor.  x. 
1  : — "  Moreover,  brethren,  I  would  not  that  yc  should  be 
Ignorant  how  that  all  our  fathers  vv'ire  under  the  cloud,  and 

*  1  Pet.  iii.  20,  21.  i  la  Lib.  N.  T.  ad  loco. 


PEDOBAPTISTS    AKE    NOT    BArxIZED.  173 

all  passed  through  the  sea,  and  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses 
in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea." 

The  argument  from  this  text  is,  that  the  Hebrew  fathers 
were  all  baptized,  but  they  were  not  immersed,  and  there- 
fore immersion  is  not  essential  to  baptism.  A  moment's 
reflection  will,  I  am  sure,  convince  any  one  that  the  conti'ary 
of  this  conclusion  is  true.  In  what  were  they  baptized  ?  In 
the  cloud,  and  in  th^  sea.  How?  By  passing  through 
the  sea,  and  under  the  cloud.  Is  not  the  likeness  this  figure 
bears  to  immersion  about  as  near  as  it  could  well  be,  and 
still  remain  a  figure  ?  Dr.  Whitby  on  this  passage  remarks  : 
"  They,"  the  Israelites,  "  were  covered  with  the  sea  on  both 
sides,  Exod.  xiv.  22,  so  that  both  the  cloud  and  the  sea  had 
some  resemblance  to  our  being  covered  with  water  in  bap- 
tism. Their  going  into  the  sea  resembled  the  ancient  man- 
ner of  going  into  the  water,  and  their  coming  out  of  it  their 
rising  up  out  of  the  water."^' 

The  only  other  figurative  allusion  requiring  our  attention 
is  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Spirit  is  said  to 
have  been  poured  out  upon  the  people,  and  its  reception  bap- 
tism, it  is  therefore  concluded  that  pouring  is  baptism. 

I  remark,  in  reply,  that  the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit  is 
never,  in  the  Scriptures,  called  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit : 
nor  indeed  does  it  bear  any  more  relation  to  it  than  the  pour- 
ing out  of  water  into  the  baptistry  does  to  the  baptism  of 
water.  It  is  not  the  mere  sending  forth  of  the  Spirit  that  is 
the  baptism,  but  its  reception  as  at  Pentecost.  When  the 
disciples  were  assembled,  they  heard  a  rushing  sound,  it 
came  dov\'n  and  filled  the  house.  It  was  the  sound  which 
is  described.  At  the  same  time  the  disciples  were  JiUed 
with  the  Spirit.  If  these  events  are  to  determine  the  mode, 
then  baptism  is  not  pouring,  sprinkling,  or  immersion,  but 

*  Boutlry  Pujd    Ex;ini.  vol.  i.  p.  1S7. 


17i  REASONS    FOR    STIlICT    COMMUNION. 

filling  the  candidate  with  wafer.  The  baptism  of  the 
Spirit  is  the  putting  men  under  his  influence ;  and  the  bap- 
tism of  water  is  the  act  of  putting  men  under  that  element. 

It  cannot,  I  think,  be  questioned  by  any  really  intelligent 
man,  that,  independent  of  the  fact  tliat  figures  never  change 
tlie  literal  meaning  of  plain  texts,  nor  is  tlieir  exposition  de- 
termined by  them,  all  the  metaphorical  allusions  in  the  word 
of  God  to  the  action  of  baptism,  so  far  from  casting  any 
doubt  upon  the  subject,  actually  strengthens  the  force  of  oui 
conclusions  that  immersion  is  essential  to  Christian  baptism. 

Tlie  design  for  which  baptism  was  instituted,  to  represent 
the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  cannot  be 
effected  unless  the  mode  is  immersion. 

"  How  shall  we  that  are  dead  to  sin,"  asks  the  apostle,* 
"  live  any  longer  therein  ?  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us 
as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  were  baptized  into  his 
death  ?"  Christ  died  for  our  sins.  We,  by  faith  in  Christ, 
are  dead  to  sin.  "  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by 
ba])tism  into  death  ;  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the 
dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk 
in  newness  of  life.  For,  if  we  have  been  planted  together 
in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness 
of  his  resurrection."  In  other  words,  as  Christ  was  buried 
in  the  grave,  so  we  are  buried  in  the  water  of  baptism  ;  and 
as  Christ  arose  and  came  out  of  the  grave,  so  we  arise  and 
come  out  of  the  water.  Our  representing  his  burial  neces- 
sarily briu-gs  us  to  represent  his  resurrection.  For  if  we 
are  planted  together,  or  are  baried  as  he  was,  we  shall  also 
rise  in  baptism,  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection.-  "  Know- 
ing this,  that  our  old  man,"  sinful  nature,  "  is  crucified  with 
him,"  in  the  person  of  Christ,  who  bore  our  sins  in  his  own 
body  on  the  tree,  "  tliat  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed, 

*  Rom.  vi.  &c. 


BAITISM    A    BURIAL.  175 

tliat  licnceforth  we  sliould  not  serve  sin.  For  he  that  is  dead," 
as  by  our  religious  profession  we  have  declared  ourselves  to 
be,  to  sin,  and  buried  to  the  world,  "  is  freed  from  sin.  Now, 
if  we  be  dead  with  Christ,  we  believe  that  we  shall  also  Hve 
with  him  ;  knowing  that  Christ,  being  raised  from  the  dead, 
dicth  no  more."  We,  if  we  be  dead  mdeed  with  him  to  sin, 
and  alive  with  him  to  righteousness,  die  no  more,  and  there- 
fore live  to  the  glory  of  him  who  died  for  us  and  rose  again. 

Such  are  the  great  truths  for  the  representation  of  which 
baptism,  according  to  apostolic  teaching,  received  its  specific 
form,  and  from  which  two  conclusions  cannot  be  avoided. 
One  is,  that  worthily  to  receive  baptism  we  must  have  a 
living  faith  in  the  efficacy  of  the  atonement  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  satisfactory  testimony  that  its  saving  power  has  been 
appHed  to  us,  by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  the  second  is,  that, 
as  a  man  when  he  dies,  leaves  all  the  scenes  and  pursuits  of 
his  former  life,  and  enters  upon  a  new  state  of  being,  so  hav- 
ing died  to  sin,  and  been  buried  in  baptism,  we  leave  all  our 
former  folly,  and  live  a  new  life  of  holiness,  by  faith  in  the 
Son  of  God.  The  same  doctrine  is  taught,  and  nearly  in  the 
same  words,  in  the  epistle  to  the  Colossians,  and  in  other 
portions  of  the  word  of  God. 

Particularly  with  regard  to  the  representation  by  baptism 
of  the  resurrection,  as  this  point  is  more  disputed  than  any 
other,  Paul  asks* — "  Else  what  shall  they  do  who  are  bap- 
tized for  the  dead  ?  If  the  dead  rise  not  at  all,  why  are  they 
then  baptized  for  the  dead  ?"  The  apostle  in  this  chapter 
proves  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  all  flesh  from  the 
dead,  by  tlie  resurrection  of  Christ.  Among  others  he  uses 
the  baptism  of  the  Corinthians  as  an  argument.  The  sub- 
stance of  his  reasoning  is  this — You  have  been  taught  that 
your  baptism  is  a  representation  of  the  burial  and  resurrec- 

*  1  Cor.  XV.  29. 


176  REASONS    FOR    STRICT    COMMUNION. 

tion  of  Christ;  but  if  tliere  is  no  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
as  the  Sadducees  contend,  then  is  not  Christ  risen,  and  the 
ordinance  has  no  significancy,  one  half  of  it  being  based  upon 
an  event  which  never  occurred.  "  If  the  dead  rise  not,  why 
are  ye  then  baptized  for  the  dead?"  "But  now  is  Christ 
risen  from  the  dead,  and  become  the  first  fruits  of  tliem  that 
slept,"  and  it  was  no  dream  of  the  imagination  which  you 
represented  when  you  were  buried  in  baptism,  and  rose  again 
from  the  emblematic  grave. 

If  the  object  of  baptism  be  to  represent  the  death,  burial, 
and  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  I  think  the  proof  I  have  now 
submitted  will  convince  the  most  incredulous  that  it  is,  I 
need  not  ask  whether  this  can  be  accomplished  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling.  The  importance  of  the  mode  of  baptism,  there- 
fore, is  apparent — "  It  marks,  in  a  figure,  the  way  in  which 
v/e  become  partakers  in  the  benefit  of  Christ's  death.  This 
is  by  our  being,  by  a  divine  constitution,  one  with  him.  His 
death  is  a  proper  atonement  for  us,  because  we  die  with  him, 
so  that,  in  reality,  his  death  is  ours.  This  is  not  necessary 
in  all  cases  of  substitution.  To  have  a  debt  discharged  by 
another,  there  is  no  necessity  to  become  one  with  him.  But 
it  is  not  so  in  crime.  Justice  is  not  satisfied  unless  the  crim- 
inal himself  suffers.  And,  by  the  divine  constitution,  that 
makes  believers  one  with  Christ,  they  are  all  considered  as 
having  died  with  him.  The  criminals  have  suffered,  since 
he  wlio  suffered  is  one  with  them."*  In  the  same  sense 
they  have  triumphed  over  death,  and  arisen  conquerors. 
These  are  the  glorious  facts  marked  by  baptism.  It  shows, 
in  a  figure,  that  union  with  Christ,  in  his  death,  burial,  and 
resurrection,  which  we  have  by  faith.  The  only  baptism 
which  will  do  this,  and,  therefore,  that  only  which  God  ap- 
proves, is  immersion. 

*  €cirson,  p.  254. 


aiR.  Lociic'ri  Views.  177 

If  ill  these  senliineiits  we  have  not  the  concurrence  of  some 
whose  minds  are  imprisoned  in  the  dark  cells  of  sectarianism, 
I  have  the  satisfaction  of  standing  side  by  side  with  such 
men  as  the  great  Locke,  who  in  his  Paraphrase  says — "  We 
are  baptized  into  a  simihtude  of  his  death.  We  did  own 
some  kind  of  death  by  being  buried  under  water,  which 
being  buried  with  him,  i.  e.,  in  conformity  with  his  burial, 
as  a  confession  of  our  being  dead,  was  to  signify  that,  as 
Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  into  a  new  hfe  with  his 
Fatlier,  even  so  we,  being  raised  from  our  typical  deatli  and 
burial  in  baptism,  should  lead  a  new  sort  of  life,  wholly  dif- 
ferent from  the  former."*  When  we  read  this,  and  similar 
expositions,  and  compare  them  with  the  cautious  admissions, 
the  tortuous  laljyrinths  of  special  pleading,  ajid  the  evasive 
arguments  of  the  diminutive  polemics  of  the  present  time,  we 
cannot  but  feel  that  they  are  worthy  the  scholar,  the  philoso- 
pher, and  the  Christian,  who  conceived  the  Essays  on  the 
Human  Understanding 

All  the  considerations  we  have  now  adduced,  in  this  and 
the  preceding  chapter,  taken  together  with  the  constant  de- 
claration that,  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  baptism  was  per- 
formed in  rivers,  and  in  places  affording  much  v/ater,  and 
the  assurance  that  in  its  administration,  they  went  down  into 
the  water,  and  came  up  out  of  the  water,  none  of  which  is 
necessary  or  ever  observed  in  pouring  or  sprinkling,  render 
the  fact  so  unquestionable  that  immersion  is  the  only  scrip- 
tural mode  of  baptism,  that  we  shall  here  rest  the  case,  and, 
with  one  remark  on  a  collateral  subject,  close  the  present, 
arginnent. 

The  remark  to  which  I  allude,  is  in  answer  to  the  inquiry, 
which  proba1)ly  will  be  made  in  reference  to  the  action  as 
wc  have  already  noticed  in  relation  to  the  subjects  of  the 

*  On  Kom.  vi.,  &c. 


178  REASOxMS    FOR    KTRICT    COMMUNION. 

ordinance ;  if  the  first  and  most  respectable  of  all  classes  of 
divines  agree  with  the  Baptists  in  opinion,  that  immersion 
only  is  taught  in  the  Bible,  as  would  seem  to  be  true  from 
our  numerous  quotations  of  their  works,  how  does  it  come 
to  pass  that  they  all  practise  pouring  and  sprinlding  for  bap- 
tism ?  Two  of  their  greatest  men  shall  reply  in  behalf  of 
the  whole.  John  Calvin  says — "  The  Church  did  grant 
liberty  to  herself  since  the  beginning  to  change  the  rife 
somewhat,  excepting  the  sid^stance  f^^ — and  Bishop  Stil- 
lingfleet  sa,ys— "-Bites,  and  customs,  apostolical  are  altered, 
as  dipping  in  baptism,^^\  Upon  these  statements  I  need 
make  no  commentary.  Their  daring  and  sacrilegious  pre- 
sumption will  meet  a  rebuke  in  every  honest  heart.  Dr. 
Cox  most  truly  observes — "It  is,  in  the  highest  degree, 
hazardous  to  tamper  with  the  positive  institutions  of  God. 
As  they  are  supported  exclusively  by  the  expressed  will 
of  the  founder,  we,  although  the  act  prescribed,  in  respect 
of  moral  attributes  may,  in  itself,  be  altogether  indifferent, 
are  under  moral  obligation  to  obey.":}:  The  very  essence 
of  obedience,  also,  consists  in  a  rigid  adherence  to  the 
authoritative  prescription,  and,  therefore,  any  alteration  in 
its  forms  of  observance,  or  any  substitution  of  one  thing  for 
another,  abrogates,  wholly,  the  institution  itself,  and  adopts 
for  the  law  of  God,  the  commandments  of  men.  Pedobap- 
tists  have  done  this  very  thing.  They  have  taken  the  un- 
conscious babe  instead  of  the  believer,  and  they  have 
sprinkled  or  poured  water  upon  the  candidate  instead  of 
baptizing  him  ;  therefore,  Pedobaptists  have  never  been 
baptized,  and  the  essential  preliminaries  being  disregarded, 
they  cannot  approach  the  table  of  the  Lord. 

*  Comm.  on  Acts  viii.  38. 

t  Apud  Booth's  Pffld.  Exam.  p.  215. 

t  Baptists  iu  America,  p.  327^ 


PEDOBAPTISTS  ARE  NOT  BAPTIZED.         179 

We  have  now  examined  the  word  vised  in  the  Scriptures 
to  describe  the  action  of  baptism,  and  find  tliat  it  means  im- 
mersion, and  notliing  else  ;  that  in  all  the  ancient  versions 
of  tiie  Scriptures  it  is  actually  so  rendered,  that  where 
sprinkling  or  pouring  is  mentioned,  words  are  employed 
entirely  dilFerent  from  baptism,  and  never  used  convertibly 
with  that  term  ;  and  that  it  is  unaffected  in  its  sense  by  the 
prepositions  with  which  it  is  associated ;  we  have  examin- 
ed all  the  facts,  passages,  and  rnetaphorical  allusions  in  the 
New  Testament,  supposed  to  forbid  the  idea  that  baptism 
was  invariably  administered  by  immersion,  and  we  find  them 
utterly  destitute  offeree  ;  and  we  have  seen  that  the  design 
for  which  baptism  was  instituted,  and  the  circumstances  at- 
tendant npon  its  administration,  prove  that  it  could  have 
been  alone  by  immersion  ;  we  liave  seen  the  principles  npon 
which  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Pedobaptist  Avriters  and 
divines  have  made  the  concessions  we  have  quoted,  and 
proved  that  their  substitutions  and  alterations  have  wholly 
abrogated  the  ordinance,  and  that  they  have  no  such  thing 
as  Christian  baptism  among  them. 

Thus  we  have  submitted  the  second  reason  why  v/e  can- 
not commune  with  Pedobaptists. 


CHAP'J^ER  XII. 

BAPTISTS  CANNOT  COMMUNE  WITH  PEDOBAPTISTS,  BECAUSE 
THEY  ADMINISTER  BAPTISM  FOR  ILLEGAL  PURPOSES,  AND 
ATTACH  TO  IT  AN  UNREASONABLE  AND  UNSCRIPTURAL 
DEGREE  OF  EFFICACY  AND  IMPORTANCE. 

Pedobaptist  doctrines  of  baptism — Baptismal  regeneration  held  by  the 
fathers — This  originated  infant  baptism,  pouring  and  sprinkling — The 
Catechism  and  Canons  of  the  Council  of  Trent — All  Pedobaptist 
Churches  believe  in  baptismal  regeneration — Book  ofCommon  Prayer 
— Confession  of  Faith — Discipline — Disciples  of  Christ — Conservative 
influence  of  Baptist  principles. 

The  third  reason  wliy  we  cannot  commune  with  pcdo- 
baptists,  is,  because  they  administer  both  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  supper  for  purposes  such  as  God  has  not  authorized, 
and  attach  to  them  an  unscriptural  and  unreasonable  degree 
of  efficacy  and  importance. 

Independent  of  tlie  inquiry,  whether,  as  tliey  liave  never 
received  the  initiatory  ordinance,  they  can  lawfully  admin- 
ister the  rites  of  the  church,  a  matter  which  I  shall  not 
now  pause  to  consider,  Pedobaptists  of  all  classes  regard 
baptism  as  the  instrumentality  of  entering  into  the  covenant 
of  salvation,  and  therefore  as  at  least  synonymous  with  re- 
generation ;  and  the  Lord's  supper  tliey  look  upon  as  a 
"  certain  means  and  seal  of  grace."  We  must  of  necessity, 
when  administered  for  such  purposes,  decline  to  be  their 
recipients. 

I  ani  aware  that  these  very  tenets,  in  all  then-  repulsivc- 
ness,  have  been  ,80  long  and  so  industriously  charged  as  a 
capital  defoot  in  our  OAvn  venerable  church,  that  the  world 
180 


BAPTISM  UNDULY  EXALTED.  191 

has  come  to  believe  tliat  we,  and  not  our  opponents,  are  the 
heterodox  party.  But  the  truth  is,  we  are  the  only  people 
who  do  not  unduly  exalt  the  sacraments  of  the  Gospel.  In 
regard,  in  the  first  place,  to  baptism,  we  shall  attempt  the 
proof  of  the  statement  now  made ;  after  which  we  shall 
adduce  testimony  in  relation  to  the  other  ordinance. 

We  reg^ird  baptism  as  neither  more  nor  less  than  a  solemn 
and  practical  profession  of  faith  in  Christ  by  a  believer  in 
him,  in  the  manner  appointed  by  the  King  in  Zion.  But 
what  do  our  brethren  of  the  several  Pedobaptist  denomina- 
tions teach  on  this  subject  ?  A  superficial  Imowledge  of 
ecclesiastical  history  is  sufficient  to  convince  any  one  that 
but  a  few  centuries  transpired  after  the  aposdes,  before  a 
melancholy  change  was  effected  in  the  opinions  of  the 
Christian  world  with  regard  to  the  design  and  efficacy  of 
the  sacraments  of  the  Gospel.  Their  importance  was  mag- 
nified immeasurably,  and  they  v»^ere  soon  believed  to  be  so 
intimately  connected  with  the  vitality  of  religion,  that  they 
could  not  in  any  case  be  omitted  without  preventing  the 
salvation  of  the  soul.  In  the  third  century  and  onwards, 
the  Christian  fathers  believed  and  taught  that  sins  were  only 
forgiven  in  baptism,  that  infants,  by  this  ordinance,  were 
purged  from  original  pollution,  and  that  all  persons  dying 
without  it  were  lost. 

This  may  be  considerd  by  some  a  bold  assertion.  I  shall 
sustain  its  truth  by  adequate  proof;  and  for  this  purpose 
shall  submit  such  testimony  as  may  be  deemed  requisite  on 
the  subject.* 

Cyprian,  the  Bishop  of  Carthage,  wrote  A.  D.  250.  On 
this  subject  he  remarks  as  follows :  "  As  far  as  lies  in  us, 
no  soul,  if  possible,  is  to  be  lost.  It  is  not  for  us  to  hinder 
any  person  from  baptism,  and  the  grace  of  God  :  which  rule, 

*  Vide  Baptist  Manual,  p.  97. 
1() 


182  REASONS    FOR    STRICT    COMMUNION. 

as  it  holds  to  all,  so  we  think  it  more  especially  to  be  ob- 
served in  reference  to  infants,  to  whom  our  help  and  the  divine 
mercy  are  rather  to  be  granted ;  because,  by  their  weeping 
and  wailing,  at  their  first  entrance  into  the  world,  they  do 
intimate  nothing  so  much  as  that  they  implore  compassion." 
Ambrose,  the  Bishop  of  Milan,  flourished  A.  D.  390. 
He  says  :  "  No  person  comes  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but 
by  the  sacrament  of  baptism.  Infants  that  are  baptized  are 
reformed  back  again  from  wickedness  to  the  primitive  state 
of  their  nature." 

Chrysostom,  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  wrote  A.  D. 
390.  He  remarks  on  this  sujbject : — "  The  grace  of  baptism 
gives  us  cure  without  pain,  and  fills  us  with  the  grace  of  the 
Spirit.  Some  think  that  the  heavenly  grace  consists  only 
in  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  but  I  have  reckoned  up  ten  ad- 
vantages of  it.  If  sudden  death  seize  us  before  we  are  bap- 
tized, though  we  have  a  thousand  good  qualities,  there  is 
nothing  to  be  expected  but  hell."* 

Similar  testimonies,  proving  that,  from  the  time  we  have 
mentioned,  the  church  considered  baptism  essential  to  sal- 
vation, abound  every  where.  "Wall's  History  of  Infint 
Baptism  is  full  of  them,  and  in  v/hich.  Vol.  i.  chap.  G,  13, 
14,  and  Vol.  ii.  ch.  6,  will  be  found,  and  may  be  consulted, 
the  originals  of  the  passages  from  the  Fathers  I  have  now 
quoted.  These  proofs,  from  the  Bishops  of  Carthage  and 
Milan,  and  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  are  amply  sufli- 
cient  for  our  purpose. 

This  error  originated.two  others  equally  egregious.  The 
former  v/as  the  administration  of  baptism  to  intlmts,  in  cases 
of  danger  of  death.  In  this,  however,  they  did  not,  during 
more  than  a  tliousand  years,  dispense  with  the  profession 
of  faith,  so  plainly  and  constantly  required  in  the  Gospel. 

*  Wall,  Lond   erl.  1705,  vol.  ii.  pp.  133,  139. 


BAPTIriM  ADMJMSTERED  FOR  UNLAWFUL  rUllPOSFS.    1S3 

But  tliis  was  permitted  to  be  made  by  proxies,  who,  under 
the  name  of  sponsors,  or  sureties,  professed  in  behalf  of  the 
infant,  to  repent,  to  renounce  the  devil,  and  to  believe  the 
Gospel,  upon  which  profession  of  the  sponsor  the  infant 
was  baptized.  This  practice  was  continued  in  the  Papacy 
U[)  to  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  and  is  still  characteristic 
not  only  of  that  fallen  hierarchy,  but  also  of  the  Episcopal 
branch  of  Protestantism.  The  latter  error  was  a  substitu- 
tion of  a  more  agreeable  form  than  immersion.  Baptism 
was  found  in  such  cases  as  have  been  named  very  inconve- 
nient, resort  was  therefore  had  as  an  expedient,  with  which 
they  associated  the  priestly  administrator  and  verbal  formu- 
lary, and  Avhich  they  presumed  would  give  it  all  necessary 
authority,  first  to  pouring,  and  afterwards  to  sprinkling. 

The  truth  of  these  facts  will  not,  I  presume,  by  any  well 
read  man,  who  is  unprejudiced,  be  questioned.  Still  it  may 
be  proper  to  sustain  them  by  adequate  testimony,  which  I 
shall  do  by  adducing  the  deposition  of  three  learned  and 
candid  Pedobaptist  divines,  and  thus  place  their  truth  beyond 
the  reach  of  controversy. 

Our  first  witness  is  Suiccrus,  Professor  of  Greek  and 
Hebrew,  Zurich,  who  says  : — "  This  opinion  of  the  absolute 
necessity  of  baptism,  arose  from  a  wrong  understanding  of 
our  Lord's  words — Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of 
the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven."* 

Salmasius,  the  learned  historian  and  critic,  is  our  second 
wdtness.t  He  remarks — "An  opinion  prevailed  that  no  one 
could  be  saved  without  being  baptized,  and  for  that  reason 
the  custom  arose  of  baptizing  infants." 

The  third  witness  is  Dr.  Wall,  Avho,  in  relation  to  the 
opinion  which  .prevailed  on  this  subject  at  the  time  of  his 

*  Apud  Booth's  Picd.  Exam.  vol.  ii.  p.  129.       ^ 
t  Booth,  ut  supra. 


1S4  REASONS    FOR    STRICT    COMMUNION. 

writing  rciiiarks  : — "  Most  of  the  PeJobap lists  go  no  further 
llian  St.  Austin  does ;  they  hold  that  God,  by  his  Spirit, 
does,  at  the  time  of  baptism,  seal  and  apply  to  the  infant  that 
is  there  dedicated  to  him,  the  promises  of  the  covenant  of 
which  he  is  capable,  viz.  adoption,  pardon  of  sins,  transla- 
tion from  the  state  of  nature  to  that  of  grace,  (fee.  On  which 
account  the  infant  is  said  to  be  regenerate  of  (or  by)  the 
Spirit."* 

Tims  it  is  seen  why  infant  baptism,  and  ultimately  sprink- 
ling, found  their  way  into  the  world. 

The  facts,  and  considerations,  now  submitted,  sufficiently 
illustrate  the  early  prevalence,  and  extensive  spread  of  the 
doctrine  which  attributes  to  baptism  a  sanctifying  and  saving 
power;  and  ive  noiv  assert,  that  the  same  doctrine,  wilh- 
out,  as  Dr.  Wall  remarks,  any  material  modijication,  is  kela 
in  all  the  "  Reformed  Churches"  ichich  have  admitted  into 
them  the  sprinkling  of  infants  as  true  and  lawful  baptism. 
'Jliis  startling  proposition,  if  sustained,  will  establish  the 
truth  of  the  statement  with  which  I  set  out,  that  they  attri- 
bute to  baptism  an  unscriptural  and  unreasonable  degree  of 
efficacy  and  importance.  The  reproach  has  been  constantly 
hurled  against  us  of  making  a  Saviour  of  baptism.  We 
shall  now  see  who  it  is  that  entertains  this  absurdity.  The 
demonstration  will  be  attempted  that  ours  is  the  only  denom- 
ination who  place  this  ordinance  in  its  true  position,  where 
it  wa^  left  by  Christ,  and  his  aposdes  ;  who  refuse,  on  the 
one  hand,  to  despoil  it  of  its  solemn  and  appropriate  forms, 
and  who  do  not,  on  the  other,  unduly  exalt  its  importance 
and  efficacy. 

The  Roman  Catholic  is  the  oldest  of  the  Pedobaptist  de- 
nomiiuitions.     Let  us   examine  on  this  subject,  their  Cate- 

*  VoL  i.  ch.  15,  ').  148,  Hist.  Inf.  Bapt. 


DOCTRINES  OP  ROMAN  CATHOLICS.  185 

chism,  and  Canons,  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  in  Session 
7,  Canon  5,  we  shall  iind  it  thus  written : — 

*'  If  any  one  shall  say  that  baptism  is  not  necessary  to 
salvation,  let  him  be  accursed.  Sin,  whether  contracted  by 
l)irth  from  our  first  parents,  or  committed  ourselves,  is,  by 
the  admirable  virtue  of  this  sacrament,  remitted  and  pardoned. 
In  baptism,  not  only  sins  are  remitted,  but  also  all  the  pun- 
ishments of  sins  and  wickedness  are  graciously  pardoned  ot 
God.  By  virtue  of  this  sacrament  we  are  not  onl}*  delivered 
from  these  evils,  but  also  we  are  enriched  with  the  best  and 
most  excellent  endowments.  For  our  souls  are  filled  with 
divine  grace,  whereby,  being  made  just,  and  the  children  of 
God,  we  are  trained  up  to  be  heirs  of  eternal  salvation  also. 
To  this  is  added  a  most  noble  train  of  virtues,  which,  to- 
gether with  grace,  is  poured  of  God  into  the  soul.  By  bap- 
tism we  are  joined  and  knit  to  Christ,  as  members  to  the 
head.  By  baptism  we  are  signed  with  a  character  which 
can  never  be  blotted  out  of  our  soul.  Besides  the  other 
things  which  we  obtain  by  baptism,  it  opens  to  every  one 
of  us  the  gate  of  heaven,  which  before,  through  sin,  was 
shut."* 

These  are  the  doctrines  in  relation  to  baptism,  and  in  their 
own  words,  of  Roman  Catholics.  They  are  undisguised 
and  definite.  The  inquiry  is  now  proper — Do  the  several 
prevailing  Protestant  denominations  of  Pedobaptists  embrace 
this  feature  of  Popery?  Do  they  teach  that  baptism  is 
essential  to  regeneration,  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  to  admit 
us  into  covenant  with  God,  to  confer  grace,  and  to  secure  the 
salvation  of  sinners.  I  am  fully  aware  of  the  earnestness, 
and  I  doubt  not  the  sincerity,  with  which  many  Avill  protest 
that  they  do  not.  What  some  individuals  believe  or  teacli 
on  this  sul^ject,  does  not  concern  our  present  inquiry.     We 

*  Apud  Judd's  Review,  p.  111. 


136  REASONS   FOR   STRICT    COMMUNION. 

have  but  too  much  evidence  to  justify  the  conckision  that 
tiiere  are  men  who  will  make  baptism  every  thing,  any  thing, 
or  nothing,  to  suit  the  exigency,  or  popular  current  of  the 
moment,  or  what  may  happen  to  be  the  fancy  of  the  times. 
Not  unfrequently  they  use  the  term  baptism  with  a  sort  of 
double  meaning.  Consequently,  when,  with  Professor 
Stewart  they  exclaim  : — "  Baptism  is  an  outward  ceremony, 
and,  therefore,  no  part  of  real  religion ;  the  external  mode 
of  an  external  rite  never  can,  with  our  present  views  of 
Christianity,  become  to  us  a  matter  of  peculiar  interest,"* 
they  mean  only  the  mode  of  baptism,  which  they  are,  on 
other  occasions,  accustomed  to  distinguish  from  baptism 
itself.  The  mode,  they  tell  us,  is  of  no  consequence.  The 
church,  says  Calvin,  has  changed  it,  and  Bishop  Stillingfleet 
says  it  is  altered.  Ask  them  again,  wliat  they  think  of  bap- 
tism, and  with  the  same  mental  reservation,  leaving  the  rnode 
out  of  sight,  they  wiU  reply  with  Dr.  Wall — "  We  hold  that 
God,  by  his  Spirit,  does  at  the  time,  of  baptism,  seal  and 
apply  *  *  the  promises  of  the  covenant  *  *  adoption,  par- 
don of  sin,  translation  from  the  state  of  nature  to  that  of 
grace,"t  in  a  word,  that  it  is  nearly  the  sum  of  religion,  and 
especially  regeneration  itself.  With  such  equivocations,  in- 
sincerities, "  palterings  in  a  double  sense,"  constandy  before 
me,  I  find  it  useless  to  ask  what  individuals  or  masses  of 
individuals  believe  or  profess  in  the  premises.  Words  are 
but  air.  They  must,  to  be  tangible,  be  written,  and  receive 
the  ecclesiastical  signature  and  seal.  I  appeal,  therefore,  to 
the  standards — confessions  of  faith,  catechisms,  &;c. — of  the 
several  denominations.  These  all  their  people  have  solemnly 
subscribed,  and  that  they  contain  the  true  exposition  of  the 
word  of  God,  they  have,  in  the  presence  of  God  and  man, 

*  Judd's  Review,  p.  89. 

t  History,  &c.,  vol.  i.  p.  148. 


rUEVARICATIONS  OF  TKOTESTANTS.  187 

deliberately  professed  to  believe.  Either  these  standards, 
particularly,  and  their  accredited  writers,  genenilly,  do  em- 
body their  real  sentiments,  or  else  they  lia\e  acted  hypocriti- 
cally ia  pubhcly  emlDracing  them.  The  latter  they  will 
hardly  confess.  The  former,  therefore,  is  true.  lierc  wg 
find  a  substantial  position,  and  shall  firmly  occupy  it. 

The  doctrine,  on  this  point,  of  the  Lutheran  churcli,  the 
Reformed  Dutch,  and  others  of  German  origin,  I  sliall  not 
examine,  because  they  do  not  prevail  very  extensively  in  diis 
country.  If  I  felt  disposed  to  do  so,  I  would  point  to  the 
ninth  article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  Faith,  written 
by  Melancthon,  and  which  is  now  embraced  by  seventeen 
of  the  sovereigns,  and  near  thirty  millions  of  the  inhabitants 
of  Europe.  It  is  in  these  words — "  They  teach  concerning 
baptism,  that  it  is  necessary  to  salvation,  because  by  baptism 
the  grace  of  God  is  offered.  Infants  are  to  be  baptized, 
who,  being  brought  to  God  by  baptism,  are  received  into  his 
favor.  They  condemn  the  Anabaptists,  who  disallow  the 
baptism  of  infants,  and  affirm  that  they,  may  be  saved  with- 
out it."*  I  proceed  to  consider  the  vicAvs  of  those  Protestant 
churches  that  more  generally  prevail  here. 

For  an  exposition  of  the  doctrine  of  our  Episcopal  brethren 
we  take  up  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  turn  to  the 
"  Directory  for  the  Administi'ation  of  the  Sacraments." 
Previous  to  administering  baptism,  the  officiating  priest,  by  a 
prescribed  form,  is  instructed  to  pray  thus  : — "Almighty  and 
immortal  God,  the  aid  of  all  that  need,  the  helper  of  all  that 
flee  to  thee  for  succor,  the  life  of  them  that  believe,  and  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead ;  we  call  upon  thee  for  this  infant, 
that  he,  coming  to  thy  holy  baptism,  may  receive  remission 
of  his  sins  by  spiritual  regeneration." 

Tills  prayer  teaches  us  what  they  suppose  the  baptism 

*  Cox's  Life  of  Melancthon,  p.  162. 


188  BAPTISMAL  UEGENEKATION. 

will  effect.  And  that  infants  are  regenerated  by  it  in  tltcir 
opinion,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  immediately  after  the  bap- 
tism in  which  they  have  prayed  that  this  spiritual  change 
may  take  place,  the  clergyman  is  thus  required  to  address 
the  church : — "  Seeing,  dearly  beloved,  that  this  child  is 
regenerate,  and  gi-afted  into  the  body  of  Christ,  let  us  give 
thanks  to  Almighty  God  for  these  benefits."  The  prayer 
too,  now  directed  to  be  said,  gives  additional  evidence  that 
they  consider  that  the  work  is  done.  It  begins  thus  : — "We 
yield  thee  hearty  thanks,  most  merciful  Father,  that  it  hath 
pleased  thee  to  regenerate  this  infant  with  thy  Holy  Spirit." 
Thus  much  is  taught  in  the  Ritual. 

The  Catechism — -"that  is  to  say,  an  instruction  to  be 
learned  by  every  person  before  he  is  brought  to  be  confirmed 
by  the  Bishop"— begins  with  the  following  questions  and 
answers. 

^' Quest.     What  is  your  name  ? 

''.dns.     N.  or  M. 

"  Quest.     Who  gave  you  this  name  ? 

^^Jlns.  My  sponsors  in  baptism,  wherein  I  was  made  a 
member  of  Christ,  the  child  of  God,  and  an  inheritor  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven." 

The  second  question  and  answer,  after  repeating  the  liOrd's 
prayer,  are  these  : — 

"  Quest.  How  many  sacraments  hath  Christ  ordained  in 
his  church  ? 

'■'•Ans.  Two  only,  as  generally  necessary  to  salvation^ 
that  is  to  say,  baptism,  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord." 

Such  are  the  teachings  of  the  Catechism. 

"  The  Directory"  orders  : — As  soon  as  the  children  "can 
say  the  Creed,  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  the  Ten  Command- 
ments, and  can  also  answer  such  other  questions  as  in  the 
short  catechism  are  contained,"  they  shall  be  brought  to  the 


DOCTRINES  OF  EPISCOPALIANS.  189 

Bishop  to  be  confirmed.  In  llie  process  of  the  service,  and 
immediately  before,  and  at  the  time,  this  prelate  lays  his 
hands  upon  the  candidates  for  confirmation,  h6  reco^iizcs,  in 
his  solemn  prayer  to  God,  and  his  assurance  to  the  individu- 
als, the  regeneration  conferred  in  their  baptism  in  infancy, 
thus  : — ''Almighty  and  everlasting  God,  who  hast  vouchsafed 
to  regenerate  these  thy  servants,  by  water,  and  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  hast  given  unto^  them  forgiveness  of  all  their 
sins^^ — And  to  the  candidates  and  audience,  he  says  : — "  We 
do  certify  them,  by  this  sign,  of  God's  favor,  and  gracious 
goodness  towards  them." 

We  have  no  need  to  carry  this  examination  further.  Their 
Ritual,  Catechism,  and  Directory,  sufficiently  develope  the 
doctrine  of  that  church  as  to  the  objects  for  which  they  ad- 
minister baptism.  An  infant,  if  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
teaches  us  coiTcctly,  receives  in  hdiptism  forgiveness  of  sins, 
is  regenerated,  is  grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ,  is  made 
a  member  of  Christ,  the  child  of  God,  and  an  inheritor 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  All  this  is  done  in  baplism, 
which,  with  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  expressly  declared  to  be 
"necessary  to  salvation."  Such  are  the  doctrines  on  this 
subject  of  the  Episcopal  church.  No  remarks  are  necessary 
to  prove  that  they  are  identical  with  those  of  the  Council  of 
Trent. 

We  will  now  examine  the  baptismal  doctrines  of  our 
brethren  of  all  classes  and  sects  of  the  Presbyterian  church. 
What  do  their  standard  and  accredited  writers  teach  ? 

To  determine  this  inquiry  we  will  take  up  the  "  Confes- 
sion OF  Faith,"  and  we  shall  find  a  declaration  in  these 
words  : — 

"IV.  Not  only  those  that  do  actually  profess  faith  in, 
and  obedience  unto  Christ,  but  also  the  infants  of  one  or 
both  believing  parents  are  to  be  baptized." 


190  BAl"nSi\IAL  KEGENEllATION. 

"  V.  Although  it  be  a  great  sin  to  contemn  or  neglect 
this  ordinance,  yet  grace  and  salvation  are  not  so  insepa- 
rahly  annexed  *unto  it,  that  1^o  person  can  be  regenerated 
or  saved  without  it,  or  that  all  that  are  baptized  are  im- 
doubtedly  regenerated."* 

Much  guarded  caution  characterizes  the  language  of  this 
passage,  indeed  it  appears  to  be  almost  a  jumble  of  nonsense 
— but  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration  is  nevertheless 
fully  embodied,  and  maintained.  Our  brethren  profess  to 
believe  that  grace  and  salvation  are  not  so  inseparably  an- 
nexed unto  baptism  as  that  they  are  conferred  by  that  ordi- 
nance in  every  case  in  which  it  is  administered ;  or  to  make 
it  in  every  case,  absolutely  essential  to  regeneration  and 
salvation.  What  then  are  its  position  and  influence  ?  That 
I  suppose,  maintained  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer- — it 
is  "  generally  necessary  to  salvation  ;"  and,  in  most  cases, 
those  who  receive  the  rite  are  by  it  regenerated.  When  the 
Confession  says — it  is  not  positively  certain  that  all  who 
are  baptized  are  by  this  ordinance  undoubtedly  regenerated, 
the  idea  is  as  unquestionably  implied  that  some  v/ho  are 
baptized  are  thereby  undoubtedly  regenerated,  as  that  when 
I  assert  that  all  who  were  at  the  battle  of  New  Orleans 
were  not  soldiers,  I  mean  to  maintain  that  some  were  sol- 
diers, and  that  others  were  citizens.  My  reader  may  possi- 
bly be  curious  to  inquire,  if  any  infants  be  regenerated  by 
baptism,  why  it  should  be  doubted  whether  all  that  receive 
it  are  not  equally  benefited.  Our  brethren  who  subscribe 
the  Confession  of  Faith  in  question  explain  themselves.  It 
is  known  that  they  are  Calvinists.  They  believe  in  eternal, 
personal,  and  unconditional  election  and  predestination.  Hear 
their  Confession  upon  this  point — "  By  the  decree  of  God, 
for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory,  some  men,  and  ajigels,  are 

*  Phila.  ed.,  182S,  pp.  121,  122, 123. 


DOCTRINES  OF  rilESIU'TERlANS. 


191 


prcdestinaled  uiilo  everlasting  life,  and  others  foreordcined  to 
everlasting  death.  These  angels  and  men,  thus  predestinated 
and  foreordained,  are  particularly  and  unchangeably  designed ; 
and  their  number  is  so  certain  and  definite,  that  it  cannot  be 
either  increased  or  diminished."-  This  being  the  case,  they 
doubt  whether  all  the  infants  they  baptize  are  of  the  elect. 
But  the  Confession  is  still  more  in  point — 

"  VI.  The  efficacy  of  baptism  is  not  tied  to  that  moment 
of  time  wherein  it  is  administered  ;  yet  notwithstanding,  by 
the  right  use  of  this  ordinance,  the  grace  promised  is  not 
only  \fered,  but  really  exhibited,  and  conferred,  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  to  such  (whether  of  age  or  infants)  as  that 
grace  belongeth  unto,  according  to  the  counsel  of  God's 
oivn  will,  in  his  appointed  time."t 

Here  we  have  the  necessary  explanations.  The  efficacy 
of  baptism  is  such  that  grace,  either  at  the  time  of  the  ad- 
ministration or  afterwards,  is  really  o^/fered,  exhibited,  and 
conferred,  in  this  ordinance,  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  provided 
always,  that  the  child  so  baptized  is  embraced  in  the  coun- 
sels of  God's  mercy— is  one  of  the  definite  elect  unto  life— 
and  therefore  one  of  those  "  that  grace  belongeth  unto."  If 
he  is  one  of  the  eternally  chosen,  the  gi'ace  that  is  only  ex- 
hibifed  and  offered  to  others,  is  upon  him  actually  conferred, 
and  he  is  undoubtedly  regenerated  in  baptism. 

In  the  "Directory  for  the  worship  of  God"  of  this 
church,  Article — "  Of  the  administration  of  baptism" — the 
minister  reads  to  his  people  the  reasons  why  an  infant  is  to 
be  baptized.  The  form  prescribed  requires  him  to  use  this 
language :— This  infant  is  to  be  baptized  not  only  because 
some  cliildren  arc  federally  holy,  but  also  because  "  we  are 
(all)  by  nature,  sinful,  guilty,  and  polluted,  and  have  need 
of  cleansing  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  by  the  sanctifying 

*  Pp.  IG,  17.  t  P.  123. 


Ti92  BAPTISMAL  REGENERATION. 

influences  of  the  Spirit  of  God."*  By  federal  holiness  of 
children  they  mean,  I  presume,  only  that  their  parents  are 
religious.  My  design,  however,  is  to  call  attention  specially 
to  the  fact  that  this  Directory  teaches  us  that  the  object  se- 
cured by  baptism  is  thereby  to  obtain  an  application  of  the 
blood  of  Christ ;  and  the  sanctifying  influence  of  the  Spirit 
of  God,  to  cleanse  the  recipients  from  pollution.  I  ask 
whether  the  baptism  of  a  child  has  this  effect  ?  If  so,  and 
they  profess  to  believe  it  has,  truly  is  it  a  capital  article  in 
religion,  and  essential  both  to  regeneration  and  to  salvation. 

The  Cumberland  branch  of  the  Presbyterian  church  have 
adopted  substantially  the  same  Confession  of  Faith,  Cate- 
chism, and  Directory,  with  their  mother  church,  repudiating 
only  the  doctrine  of  election  and  predestination,  and  some 
things  in  relation  to  the  ministry.  On  baptism  they  teach 
precisely  the  same  doctrines,  and  in  the  same  words  with 
their  progenitor,  as  any  one  may  see  Avho  will  be  at  the 
trouble  of  comparing  their  standards.  The  same  remarks 
are  true  of  the  Hopkinsians,  the  Old  School,  the  New 
School,  and  all  the  other  sects  of  that  denomination. 

In  the  Articles  now  examined,  we  have  again  exhibited 
before  us  the  doctrines  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  which  are 
indeed  still  more  fully,  and  with  less  disguise,  taught  by  the 
wisest  and  most  eminent  divines  of  their  faith,  to  two  of 
whom,  as  a  specimen  of  all  the  others,  I  shall  briefly  refer. 
The  former  is  the  late  learned  President  of  Yale  College, 
Dr.  Timothy  D wight,  whose  System  of  Theology,  in  many 
respects  so  excellent,  is  adopted  as  a  standard  work  by  the 
several  branches  of  the  church,  of  which  he  was  a  distin- 
guished member ;  and  the  latter  is  the  pious  and  eminent 
commentator,  Matthew  Henry. 

Dr.  Dv/ight  remarks — "  When  children  die  in  infancy,  and 

*  P.  431. 


DOCTRINES  OF  PRESBYTrRTAXS.  103 

are  scripiurally  dedicated  to  God  in  baptism,  there  is  much 
and  very  consoling  reason  furnished  to  beUeve  that  they  are 
accepted  beyond  the  grave."* 

This  is  a  very  pretty,  and  apparendy  a  very  pious  passage. 
But  it  is  expressed  with  the  cautiousness  of  a  man  who  is 
conscious  that  he  is  on  dangerous  ground.  It  is  the  statement 
of  a  positive,  and  we  only  are  concerned  to  know  what  the 
negative  is  which  it  contains.  When  Dr.  Dwiglit  singles 
out  the  baptized  children  who  die  in  infancy,  and  tells  us 
"  there  is  much  and  very  consohng  reason  furnished  to  believe 
that  they  are  accepted  beyond  the  grave,"  are  we  not  to 
understand  him  as  maintaining  negatively  of  unbapiized  chil- 
dren who  die  in  infancy,  that  there  is  little  reason  furnished, 
and  none  that  is  consoling,  to  believe  that  they  are  accepted 
beyond  the  grave  ? 

Mr.  Henry,  in  his  "  Treatise  on  Baptism,"  uses  on  the 
subject  under  consideration,  the  follovving  language  :  "  The 
Gospel  contains  not  only  a  doctrine,  but  a  covenant ;  and  by 
baptism  we  are  brought  into  that  covenant.  Baptism  wrests 
the  keys  of  the  heart  out  of  the  hand  of  the  strong  man 
armed,  that  the  possession  may  be  surrendered  to  him  whose 
right  it  is.  The  water  of  baptism  is  designed  for  our  cleans- 
ing from  the  spots  and  defilements  of  the  flesh.  In  baptism 
our  names  are  engraved  upon  the  breastplate  of  the  High 
Priest.  This,  then,  is  the  efficacy  of  baptism ;  it  is  putting 
t!ie  child's  name  in  the  Gospel  grant.  We  are  baptized  into 
Christ's  death,  that  is,  God  doth,  in  that  ordinance,  seal,  con- 
firm, and  make  over  to  us  all  the  benefits  of  the  death  of 
Christ." 

If,  as  Mr.  Henry  here  maintains,  we  are  brought  by  bap- 
Hsm  into  "  the  covenant  of  grace,"  cleansed  from  the  spots 
and  defilements  of  the  flesh,  have  our  names  put  into  the 

*  Svstem  of  Theol...  first  Senn.  on  Bapt. 

17 


194  BArnsMAL  regeneration. 

Gospel  grant,  and  secured  to  us  all  the  benefits  of  the  death 
of  Christ,  which  in  that  ordinance  are  sealed,  confirmed,  and 
made  over  to  us,  it  must  be  regeneration,  sanctification,  salva- 
tion— indeed  nearly  the  whole  sum  and  essence  of  the  reli- 
gion of  Christ. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  decide  what  the  standards  and 
accredited  writers  of  the  Presbyterian  church  teach  in  relation 
to  tlie  efficacy  of  baptism.  They  hold  that,  provided  the 
child  is  one  of  the  elect,  grace  and  salvation  are  annexed  unto 
baptism,  and  that  in  this  ordinance,  whether  the  recipient  is 
adult  or  infant,  such  grace  and  salvation  are  absolutely  offered, 
exhibited,  and  conferred  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  that  in  it  are 
applied  to  our  cleansing  from  sin,  the  blood  of  Christ,  and 
the  sanctifying  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  that  it  brings 
the  child  into  covenant  with  God,  and  seals,  confirms,  and 
makes  over  to  it  all  the  benefits  of  tlic  death  of  Christ ;  and 
that  it  prepares  it  for  acceptance  with  God  beyond  the  grave  I 
Tliese  undisputed  and  indisputable  facts  show  that  tlie  Pres* 
byterian  comes  behind  no  other  church  in  the  tenacity  with 
winch  she  upholds  and  supports  the  doctrine  of  baptismal 
regeneration  and  salvation. 

'I'he  only  remaining  Pedolmptist  denomination  prevailing 
extensively  among  us,  is  the  Methodist.  Do  our  brethren 
of  that  church  hold  and  teach  the  same  doctrines  on  the  sub- 
ject in  hand  which  we  have  seen  are  maintained  by  Roman 
Catholics,  Episcopalians,  and  all  the  branches  of  Presl^yte- 
rians  ?  To  this  inquiry  it  is  not  difficult  to  furnish,  from 
authoritative  sources,  a  full  and  satisfactory  reply. 

Let  us  examine  the  book  of  "  Discipline."  We  find  in 
the  order  entitled  "  The  ministration  of  baptism  to  infants," 
that  the  minister  is  required  to  commence  this  service  by 
reading  to  his  people  an  address,  copied  almost  verbatim  from 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  as  follows  : 


DOCTRINES  or  Mr/niODTSTS.  1D5 

"  Dearly  beloved,  forasmuch  as  all  men  are  conceived  and 
born  in  sin,  and  that  our  Saviour,  Christ,  saith,  none  can 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  except  he  be  regenerate  and 
born  anew,  of  water  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  I  beseech  you 
to  call  upon  God  the  Father,  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
that,  of  his  bounteous  mercy,  he  will  grant  unto  this  child 
that  thing  which  by  nature  he  cannot  have  ;  that  he  may 
be  baptized  with  water  and  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  be 
received  into  Christ's  Holy  Church,  and  be  made  a  lively 
member  of  the  same."* 

I  have,  in  this  passage,  emphasized  the  words  that  thing 
— that  God  would  grant  unto  this  child  that  thing,  which 
by  nature  he  cannot  have.  What  thing  ?  To  be  regenerate, 
and  born  aneiv  of  water  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  When  ? 
Now,  in  his  baptism  !  It  is  in  this  short  quotation  twice 
repeated — by  baptism,  born  anew  of  water  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost;  and  it  is  added — Our  Saviour  Christ  saith,  without 
tliis  none  can  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  Without 
what?  Without  being  regenerated,  and  born  anew  of  water 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost !  "We  have  here  embodied  the  doc- 
trine of  this  church  regarding  the  advantages  and  efficacy 
of  baptism.  All  its  members  solemnly  profess  to  believe, 
and  to  take  for  their  guide  a  book  which  teaches  that,  in 
their  baptism,  infants  are  regenerated  and  born  anew  of 
water  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  without  this  none 
can  be  saved !  It  is  in  perfect  coincidence  with  this  senti- 
ment that  the  Discipline  dictates  to  the  minister  a  prayer  for 
the  child,  in  which  he  is  directed  to  beseech  Almighty  God. 
that,  in  his  baptism,  he  would  "  wash  him,  and  sanctify  him 
with  the  Holy  Ghost ;"  and  what  is  it  to  be  waslied,  and 
^an*"  •'■■''■<  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  to  be  regenerated,  which 

New  York  cd.  1829,  p.  100. 


11>(3  BAPTISMAL  UEtiKiVA RATION. 

tlie  Discipline  teaches  us  is  done  in  baptism,  and  iliat  with- 
oui  which  none  can  be  saved ! 

Let  no  one  imagine  that  I  have  either  mistaken  or  mis- 
represented th.e  doctrine  of  the  Disciphne  upon  this  subject. 
Lest  some  one  should  be  inclined  to  indulge  such  an  opinion, 
I  shall  prove  my  exposition  of  it  to  be  correct  by  testimony 
that  cannot  be  questioned.  Mr.  Wesley  wrote,  or  copied 
from  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  this  Discipline — certainly 
this  part  of  it.  Whoever  else  may  be  mistaken,  he  himself 
knew  Avhat  he  intended  to  teach  in  the  premises.  His 
opinions  in  other  Avorks  in  which  he  has  discussed  the  same 
subject  will  illustrate  and  define  his  meaning  in  the  book 
before  lis.  In  his  "  Treatise  on  Baptism,"  Mr.  Wesley 
says  :  "  By  baptism,  we  v/ho  are  by  nature  the  children  of 
wrath,  are  made  the  children  of  God.  And  this  ref^eneration, 
Avhich  our  Church  in  so  many  places  ascribes  to  buj)iism, 
is  more  than  barely  being  admitted  into  the  Church,  though 
commonly  connected  therewith.  Being  grafted  into  the  body 
of  Christ's  church,  we  are  made  the  children  of  God  by 
adoption  and  grace.  John  iii.  5.  By  Avater,  then,  as  a 
means,  the  tvater  of  baptism,  we  are  regenerated  and  hern 
again,  whence  it  is  called  by  the  apostle,  '  the  washing  of 
regeneration.'  In  all  ages  the  outward  baptism  is  a  means 
of  the  imvard.  Herein  we  receive  a  title  to,  and  an  earnest 
of,  a  kingdom  which  cannot  be  moved.  In  the  ordinary 
way,  there  is  no  other  way  of  entering  into  the  Church,  or 
into  heaven.  If  infants  are  guilty  of  original  sin,  then  they 
are  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  seeing,  in  the  ordinary  Avay, 
they  cannot  be  saved  unless  this  be  washed  away  in  bap- 
tism."* 

Who,  that  reads  this  passage,  can  doubt  that  the  Discip- 

*  Works,  vol.  vi.  pp.  15,  16.  New  York  ed.  issued  by  ihc  Book  Cou- 


ceru 


ol"  lluit  church. 


DOCTRINES  OF  METHODISTS.  197 

line  desi^s  to  teach  baptismal  regeneration  and  salvation,  in 
the  broad  sense  of  Austin,  Jerom,  and  others  of  the  fathers, 
■who  figured  so  largely  in  the  Pelagian  controversy  of  the 
fourth  century.  I  am  not  unapprised  of  the  objection  that 
Mr.  AVesley  v/rote  the  book  I  have  quoted  while  yet  an 
Episcopalian,  and  before  he  escaped  from  the  mists  of  that 
age.  I  reply,  it  was  long  after  he  had  organized  his  sociely, 
and  written  his  Discipline.  I  will  not  inquire  whether  he 
ever  left  the  Episcopal  church,  but  will  simply  remark,  that 
among  tlie  last,  if  not  the  very  last  book  he  ever  wrote,  was 
his  "Notes  on  the  New  Testament."  In  relation  to  the 
baptism  of  Paul,  on  these  words — "  Arise,  and  be  baptized, 
and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord," 
he  observes  ;  "  Baptism  is  both  the  'means  and  the  seal  of 
pardon,  and  God  did  not  ordinarily,  in  the  primitive  church, 
bestow  his  grace  upon  any,  save  through  this  means." 

Such  are  the  doctrines  of  the  Discipline  and  of  its  great 
author.  They  are  too  unequivocal  to  admit  of  any  misap- 
prehension. They  make  regeneration  and  sab.ation  dej^end- 
ent  on  baptism.  We  are  baptized,  says  the  Discipline, 
because  we  are  conceived  and  born  in  sin,  and  our  Saviour 
Christ  saith,  none  can  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  except 
he  l)e  regenerate  and  born  anew  of  water  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  and  because  in  baptism  we  arc  waslied  and  sanctified 
with  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  we  are  baptized,  says  Mr.  Wesley, 
because  by  it  we  are  made  the  children  of  God,  are  connected 
witli  the  church,  are  regenerated  and  born  again,  receive  a 
title  and  earnest  to  heaven,  and  because  without  it  infants,  if 
they  are  partakers  of  original  sin,  cannot  be  saved ! 

With  all  diese  facts  before  us,  I  appeal  to  the  intelligence 
of  my  readers,  whether  I  have  not,  as  I  proposed,  satisfac- 
torily proved  that  all  the  prevailing  reformed  churches  which 
have  admitted  into  them  the  sprinkling  of  infants  as  true  and 
17* 


198  BArnsMAL  regeneration. 

lawful  baptism,  attiibnte,  as  the  Papists  have  ever  done  to 
this  ordinance,  a  sanctifying  and  saving  power.  Do  they  or 
we,  then,  m^ignify  most  its  importance  and  efficac}^  ?  The  ex- 
act difference  between  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  and  ourselves 
on  this  subject  may  now  readily  be  determined.  They  bap- 
tize to  give  a  preparation  and  tide  to  heaven ;  and  we  teach 
that  it  is  alone  the  experience  and  grace  of  salvation  that  can 
give  a  title  to  baptism. 

The  inquiry  will  probabty  be  suggested  whether  sects 
practising  only  adult  immersion  as  baptism,  have  not  some- 
times appeared,  who  also  maintain  and  teach  that  this  ordi- 
nance is  essential  to  regeneration,  and  intimately  affects 
salvation  ?  I  reply  in  the  affirmative.  Instances  have 
occurred  in  the  Old  World,  and  an  example  recently  in  our 
own  countiy.  It  is,  however,  a  remarkable  fact,  that  such 
sects  seldom  arise,  and  when  they  do  are  of  short  continuance. 
The  doctrine  soon  leads,  as  it  did  in  the  third  century,  to 
Pedobaptism,  or  its  absurdity  becomes  so  apparent,  that,  in 
a  few  generations,  it  finds  no  advocates,  and  is  abandoned. 

The  party  maintaining  the  principles  in  question  at  present 
in  our  country,  has  acquired  all  its  importance  within  the 
last  twenty  years.  Tlie  "  Encyclopedia  of  Religious  Know- 
ledge," a  work  lately  published,*  cantains  an  article  written 
by  Mr.  Alexander  Campbell,  their  founder,  somewhat  in  the 
form,  and  which  serves  the  purpose  of  a  declaration  of  fiith, 
expressly  for  this  volume,  by  which  it  will  be  seen  that  he 
has  named  them  "  Disciples  of  Chris f — they  are  known 
to  the  public  by  the  name  of  Campbelliies.  The  speciiic 
views  on  this  point  of  the  sect  are  set  forth  authoritatively 
in  the  article  in  question  in  these  words  :  "  'i'hey  consider 
immersion  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit, 
after  a  public,  sincere,  and  intelligent  confession  of  faith  in 

*  P.  4o2,  463. 


DOCTRl-NE  OF  THE  DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST.  199 

Jesus,  as  necessary  to  admission  to  the  privileges  of  the  king- 
dom of  Messiah,  and  as  a  solemn  pledge  on  the  part  of  Heaven 
of  the  actual  remission  of  all  past  sins,  and  of  adoption  into 
the  family  of  God.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  promised  only  to 
those  who  believe  and  obey  the  Saviour" — are  immersed. 
"  No  one  is  taught  to  expect  the  reception  of  that  heavenly 
Monitor  and  Comforter,  as  a  resident  in  his  heart,  till  he 
obeys  the  Gospel" — is  baptized.  "  They  proclaim  faith  and 
repentance — as  preparatory  to  immxersion,  remission,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit."  We  have  here  reiterated  the  same  old  doc- 
trine of  the  Council  of  Trent,  characteristic  of  Popery,  that 
baptism  is  essential  to  the  remission  of  sins,  to  the  bestow- 
ment  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  of  these,  and  of  our  adop- 
tion, it  is  the  pledge  of  Heaven ! 

These  sentiments  are  more  diffusely  and  perspicuously 
expressed  in  their  several  relations,  in  the  accredited  organ 
of  the  "  Disciples  of  Christ."  This  work,  edited  by  their 
originator  and  leader,  was  commenced  in  1823,  and  at  that 
time  bore  the  name  of  "  Christian  Baptist."  In  one  of  its 
articles  Mr.  Campbell  says  :  "  If  a  man  can  have  any  evi- 
dence of  tlie  forgiveness  of  his  sins  without  baptism,  I  would 
advise  him  not  to  be  baptized."  Subsequently  the  name  of 
the  periodical  was  changed  to  that  which  it  now  bears,  "  The 
Millennial  Harbinger."  In  Mill.  Harb.  Extra,  No.  1,  on 
Reireneration,  Mr.  Campbell  remarks:  "On  this  side  and 
on  that  of  baptism" — or  before  and  after  it—"  mankind  are 
in  quite  different  states.  On  this  side  they  are  in  a  state  of 
condemnation ;  on  the  other  they  are  pardoned,  justified, 
reconciled,  adopted,  and  saved."  In  Mill.  Harb.  Extra,  No. 
1 ,  p.  30,  we  have  this  assertion  :  "  If  any  of  them  wilfully 
neglect  or  disdain  immersion,  we  cannot  hope  for  his  salva- 
tion." And  in  Mill.  Harb.  Extra,  No.  1,  p.  29,  it  is  added: 
"  Nothing  is  personal  regeneration  but  the  act  of  immersion." 


200  REASONS    FOR    STRICT    COMMUNION. 

Ill  his  recent  Mork,  entitled  "  Christianity  Restored,"  Mv. 
Campbell  says  : — "  l?ut  one  thing  we  do  know,  tliat  }iu}ie 
can  rationally,  and  with  certainty,  enjoy  the  peace  of  God 
and  the  hope  of  heaven,  but  they  who,  intelligently  and  in 
full  faith,  are  born  of  water — or  arc  immersed  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins." 

We  cannot,  with  all  these  testimonies  before  us,  and  we 
could  add  to  their  number  indefinitely,  mistake  the  doctrines 
of  the  Disciples  on  the  subject  in  hand.  They  embody  all 
the  objectionable  features  of  the  several  Pedobaptist  sects, 
with  this  exception  in  their  favor ;  they  immerse  only  in 
baptism,  and  administer  the  ordinance  to  none  but  "  confess- 
ing "  adults.  In  all  other  respects,  and  particularly  in  hold- 
ing baptism  to  be  essential  to  regeneration  and  salvation,  they 
advocate  the  same  doctrines  W'ith  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  the  Confession  of  Faith,  the  Discipline,  and  the 
Catechism  and  Canons  of  the  Council  of  Trent.  "  By  bap- 
tism," says  the  Roman  Catholic,  "our  sins  are  remitted  and 
pardoned,  and  we  are  joined  and  Imit  to  Christ,  as  members 
to  the  head."  "  By  baptism,"  says  the  Episcopalian,  "  we 
are  regenerated  and  made  members  of  Christ,  the  children  of 
God,  and  heirs  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  "  By  baptism," 
says  the  Presbyterian,  "  we  are  brought  into  covenant  with 
God,  cleansed  from  the  defilements  of  the  flesh,  and  God 
doth  seal,  confirm,  and  make  over  to  us,  all  the  benefits  of 
the  death  of  Clirist."  "  By  baptism,"  says  the  Methodist, 
"  we,  who  are  by  nature,  the  cliildren  of  wrath,  are  made 
the  children  of  God,  are  regenerated  and  born  again."  And 
"  by  baptism,"  says  the  Disciple,  "  we  are  regenerated,  par- 
doned, justified,  reconciled,  adopted,  and  saved." 

Such  are  the  conclusions  to  which  we  are  conducted  by  a 
brief  review  of  the  several  leading  denominations  of  the  Soudi 
West.     The  evaiigeUcal  portion  of  them  will,  I  doubt  not, 


I'EUOJJAri'IS'i'   DOCTUINE.  231 

earnestly  protest  that,  whatever  their  books  of  faith,  and 
their  ^eat  writers  may  teach,  they  do  not  beheve  tliat  bap- 
lisiii  h.as  any  regenerating  or  saving  influence  whatever ;  that 
spirituahly,  and  not  a  mere  rite,  is  the  sum  of  rehgion.  I 
question  not  their  sincerity.  I  respect  it.  I  am  gratified  to 
concede  to  them  that  their  knowledge  of  the  Bible,  and  of 
experimental  religion,  has  taught  them  the  errors  of  their 
creed-makers,  and  their  schoolmen,  and  that  in  their  preach- 
ing, and  other  religious  exercises,  they  forget  them  all,  and 
practise  upon  better  principles.  Yet  there  are  two  or  three 
matters  connected  with  their  conduct  which  to  me  are  unac- 
countable. One  is,  that  notwithstanding  their  oft  repeated 
protests  against  them,  still  they  solemnly  subscribe  these  very 
standards,  publicly  profess  their  belief  that  they  do  contain 
the  true  exposition  of  the  word  of  God,  teach  them  to  their 
children,  and  publish  them  to  the  world  as  their  articles  of 
faith.  Another  is,  that  they  should  inveigh  so  unceasingly 
against  the  importance  of  baptism,  with  mental  reservation, 
wishing  to  make,  on  the  public  mind,  an  impression  that 
they  mean  baptism,  when,  in  fact,  they  have  reference  only 
to  a  particular  mode  of  its  administration.  And  the  third  is, 
the  excitement  they  manifest  on  this  subject,  when  their  un- 
baptized  children  are  in  danger  of  death.  The  fact  may  be 
disguised  with  all  possible  carefulness,  yet  the  impression  is 
in  the  heart,  latent  indeed,  but  easily  elicited,  that  baptism 
does,  in  some  way  or  other,  afTect  the  happiness,  and  is  a 
very  essential  preparation  for  another  world.  I  cannot  repel 
the  opinion,  and  I  hesitate  not  to  express  it,  that  nothing  pre- 
vents all  the  exti'avagant  practices,  formerly  connected  with 
this  sacrament,  from  being  carried  here  to  the  same  corrupt 
extremes  that  they  have  reached  in  Catholic  countries,  but 
the  antagonist  hifluence  of  Baptist  principles. 


CHAPTER   Xill. 

BAPTISTS  CANNOT  UNITE  WITH  PEDOBAPTISTS  IN  SACRAMEN- 
TAL COMMUNION,  BECAUSE  THEY  ATTACH  TO  THE  LORd's 
SUPPER  AN  UNREASONABLE  AND  UNSCRIPTURAL  IMPOR- 
TANCE AND  EFFICACY. 

Early  superstition — Roman  Catholics — Infant  communion — Came  into 
the  church  with  infant  baptism  and  accompanied  it  for  a  thousand 
years — Its  abrogation — When  and  why — Opinions  of  the  Episcopal 
church — Of  the  Presbyterian — Of  the  Methodist — Communion  with 
them  is  an  assent  to  their  doctrines  on  communion  which  we  can- 
not give — Open  communion  is  impracticable — It  is  subversive  of  all 
discipline — The  law  of  God  the  only  safe  rule — Close  of  this  part  of 
the  argument. 

The  same  unreasonable  and  iniscriptural  efficacy  and  im- 
portance, with  which,  as  we  have,  in  the  last  chapter,  seen 
our  Pedobaptist  brethren  of  all  sects,  invest  baptism,  they 
also  attach  to  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper.  The 
proof  of  this  statement, — for  I  ask  no  man  to  give  it  credit 
without  the  amplest  confirmation, — will  occupy  our  present 
attention.  The  Roman  Catholics  dispense  it  under  the  name 
of  the  mass,  as  an  expiatory  sacrifice,  and  all  the  other  de- 
nominations refuse,  on  that  account,  and  would  continue  to 
do  so  had  they  no  other  reason,  to  receive  it  at  their  hands. 
But  the  Protestants,  with  certainly  no  better  authority,  admi- 
nister it  professedly,  as  "  an  effectual  means  of  grace  ;"  to 
"  seal  and  exhibit  the  benefits  of  the  mediation  of  Christ  ;*' 
and  as  "necessary  to  salvation."  When  such  objects  are 
avowed,  is  it  possible  Baptists  can  be  among  the  recipients  ? 
Such  an  expectation  ought  not  to  be  entertahied.  AVe  cau 
202 


INFANT  COMMUNION.  203 

apj)roach  the  holy  table  only  when  the  design  is  legitniiately 
scriptural, — to  "show  tlie  Lord's  death  till  he  come,"  to 
express  our  faith  in  the  vicariousness  of  his  great  sacrifice, 
and  to  exhibit  an  emblem  of  that  fellowship  in  spirit,  which 
we  have  "  with  the  Father,  and  with  his  Son  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord."  The  Protestant,  though,  perhaps,  more  modest 
than  the  Popish  dogmas,  are  to  us,  not  less  objectionable. 

These  propositions,  however,  we  may  be  possibly  told, 
are  extravagant  and  ridiculous.  We  appeal  to  the  History 
of  the  Church,  the  standards  of  the  several  denominations, 
their  writers  of  authority,  and  their  public  conduct  and  pro- 
fessions. 

Their  greater  antiquity  entitles  the  Roman  Catholics  to 
priority  in  our  attention.  On  the  decline  of  religion,  about 
the  third  century,  when  the  transition  in  the  minds  of  men 
began  to  take  place  from  its  substance  to  its  forms,  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  supper  arose  together  in  public  estimation. 
They  soon  became  the  two  leaves  which  compose  the  golden 
gate  of  the  New  Jerusalem.  If  the  former  was  an  indis- 
pensa1)le  preliminary  to  the  latter,  both  were  alike  necessary 
to  salvation.  These  facts  we  shall  presently  see  fully  estab- 
lished. The  motives,  therefore,  that  prompted  the  baptism 
of  infants,  very  naturally  led  to  the  administi-ation  to  them, 
without  distinction,  of  the  supper  of  the  Lord.  A  fact  so 
singular  as  infant  co3i>iunion  will  doubtless  appear  to  many 
who  may  peruse  these  pages,  I  will  not  venture  to  state, 
without  at  the  same  time,  giving  such  testimonies  of  its  truth 
as  may  seem  to  be  requisite.  Preposterous  as  infant  com- 
munion may  appear,  it  is  not  more  so  than  infant  baptism, 
Avith  the  whole  system  of  which  it  is  perfectly  consistent. 
History  is  exuberant  upon  this  point.  Dr.  Wall  asserts  that 
"  the  baptized  person  was,  quickly  after  his  baptism,  admit- 
ted to  partake  of  the  Lord's  supper.     This  was  always,  and 


204  REASONS    FOR    STRICT    COMM(JNION.    . 

in  all  places,  used  in  the  case  of  adult  persons,  and  in  some 
ages  and  places  in  the  case  of  infants."* 

Mr.  Daille,  in  his  work  on  "  The  right  use  of  the 
Fathers,"  collates  the  testimony  of  Cyprian,  Austin,  and  Pope 
Innocent  I.,  all  of  whom  he  proves  to  have  been  warm  ad- 
vocates and  supporters  of  infant  communion,  and  adds  : — 
"  All  the  rest  of  the  Doctors,  in  a  manner,  of  the  first  ages, 
maintained  that  the  eucharist  was  necessary  for  infants  ;  if  at 
least  you  take  Maldonatus'  word,  who  affirms  that — '  This 
opinion  was  in  great  request  in  the  church,  during  the  first 
six  hundred  years  after  our  Saviour  Christ,'  Down  as  far 
as  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,"  continues  Mr.  Daille,  the 
Fathers  held  that  the  eucharist  is  as  7iecessary  to  salvation 
as  baptism, — and  consequently  to  be  administered  to  infants  ; 
and  concludes  from  that,  as  from  one  of  his  two  chief  in- 
stances, how  little  heed — ^now  that  infant  communion  is  aban- 
doned-— "  is  given  to  the  practice  of  primitive  times."  But 
Maldonatus'  meaning,  we  are  assured,  by  the  prosing  Vicar 
of  Shoreham,  was  mistaken  by  Mr.  Daille.  He  maintains 
that — "  This  opinion  [of  the  necessity  to  their  salvation  of 
infont  communion]  began  to  be  entertained  in  the  year  four 
liundre;!,  and  continued  from  that  period,  six  hundred  years." 
But  Wall,  himself,  supplies  the  materials  by  which  the  opin- 
ions he  advocates  are  most  readily  refuted.  lie  exhibits,  on 
the  matter  now  before  us,  one  of  the  numerous  instances 
which  occur  in  his  works,  of  his  singular  blindness,  when  he 
does  not  wish  to  see  the  facts  that  lie  before  him.  We  will, 
for  ourselves,  consult  the  Fatliers,  whose  names  have  been 
mentioned,  with  others  who  record  the  same  history,  and 
maturely  determine  the  nature  of  the  lessons  they  teach  us. 

*  Hist.  Tnf.  Bap,,  vol.  ii.  ch.  9,  from  section  15,  p.  353,  to  the  end 
of  the  chapter,  vvliere  will  be  found  all  the  statements  and  authorities 
here  introduced. 


INFAN^T  COMMUNION.  295 

Cyprian,  in  his  book  De  Lapsis,  narrates  numerous  inci- 
dents attending  the  administration,  by  himself,  at  Cartilage, 
of  the  Lord's  supper  to  infants,  who  were  not  yet  old  enough 
to  speak.  The  story  is  too  prolix,  fanatical,  and  visionary, 
to  be  repeated.  It  may  be  seen  by  consulting  the  Magde- 
burgenses,  Salmasius,  Suicerus,  Wall,  ut  supra,  and  Hinton's 
History  of  .Baptism."*  It  is  sufficient  for  my  purpose  that 
Cyprian  refers  to  infant  communion,  and  to  the  propriety  of 
it  as  undoubted. 

"  Innocent  I.,  Bishop  of  Rome,"  says  Wall,  "  does,  indeed, 
anno  417,  plainly,  and  positively,  say  that  infants  cannot  be 
saved  without  receiving  the  eucharist,  and  that  too  in  a  Sy- 
nodical  Epistle,  written  to  the  Milevitan  Council."!     This 
gi-ave  and  reverend  conclave  had,  in  a  formal  address,  repre- 
sented to  Innocent,  the  master  of  the  triple  throne,  and  the 
infallible  arbiter  of  all  truth,  tliat  the  Pelagians  had  dared  to 
embrace  and  even  to  defend  the  sentiment  that,  possiljly, 
infants  might  be  saved  without  baptism.     The  Pontiff  im- 
mediately, and  indignantly,  replied  in  these  words  : — "  That 
which  your  brotherhood  says  that  they  teach — that  infants 
may,  without  the  grace  of  baptism,  have  eternal  life,  is  very 
absurd,  since — '  Except  they  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of 
Man,  and  drink  his  blood,  they  have  no  life  in  them  ;' — they 
can  have  no  eternal  life  without  receiving  the  communion  ; 
and  they  cannot  do  that  until  they  are  baptized."     The  cha- 
racter, and  stations,  of  the  parties  concerned  in  this  corre- 
spondence, evince  the  extent  to  which  the  Christian  world 
had,  in  that  early  age,  adopted  the  principles,  and  practised 
the  ceremony  of  infant  communion. 

Austin  writes  in  the  following  emphatic  terais  : — "  The 
Christians  in  Africa  do  well  to  call  baptism  itself  one's  sal- 

*  P.  326. 

t  Vide  also  Iniioc.  Epist.  93,  inter  Epist.  to  Augustine. 
18 


296  REASONS    FOR    STRICT    COMMUNION. 

valion ;  and  the  sacrament  of  Christ's  body  one's  life.  From 
whence  is  this  but,  as  I  suppose,  from  that  ancient  and  apos- 
tohcal  tradition,  by  which  the  churches  of  Clu-ist  do  naturally 
hold  that,  without  baptism  and  partaking  of  the  Lord's  table, 
none  can  come  either  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  or  to  salvation 
and  eternal  life.  Neither  salvation,  nor  eternal  life,  is  to  be 
hoped  for,  by  any,  without  baptism,  and  the  body  and  blood 
of  our  Lord;  it  is  in  vain  promised  to  infants  without 
them."* 

We  need  not  multiply  testimony  in  the  premises.  All  that 
I  proposed  to  establish  is  sufficiently  apparent.  Infant  bap- 
tism, and  infant  communion,  beyond  question,  came  into 
existence  at  the  same  time,  were  sustained  by  the  same  argu- 
ments, and  flourished  together  for  a  thousand  years.  Both 
were  believed  to  be  necessary  equally  to  the  salvation,  whe- 
ther of  an  adult  or  an  infant,  and  they  are  certainly  reserved, 
when  the  church  shall  return  to  her  primitive  purity  and 
holiness,  to  share  the  same  destiny.  It  is  worthy  of  remark, 
en  passant,  that  modern  advocates  of  infant  baptism,  dv/ell 
with  great  emphasis  on  the  statement  of  Austin,  that  this 
practice  had  come  down  to  them  as  an  apostolic  tradition. 
But  the  same  Father,  and  others  also,  assert,  as  we  have  just 
seen,  precisely  the  same  thing  in  favor  of  infant  communion. 
That  too  was  a  tradition  received  from  the  apostles.  If  the 
argument  is  conclusive  in  the  former  case,  it  cannot  be  defec- 
tive in  the  latter.  But  here  they  reject  its  authority,  and 
have  abandoned  the  practice.  Few  Pedobaptists  have  the 
candor  of  Bossuet,  who  says — "  The  churcli  has  always 
believed,  and  still  believes,  that  infants  are  capable  of  receiv- 
ing the  eucharist  as  well  as  baptism,  and  find  no  more 
obstacle  to  their  communion  in  tlie  words  of  St.  Paul — '  Let 
a  man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat,'  than  they  {iin\ 

*  De  Pccatorum,  Mentis,  lib.  i.  cap.  27. 


INFANT  COMMUNION.  207 

to    baptism   in   these   words   of   our   Lord — '  Teach,   and 
baptize.'  "* 

In  regard  to  tlie  age  at  which  the  child  was  expected  to 
approach  the  Lord's  table,  and  the  manner  in  which  they 
commnnicated,  we  have  the  most  explicit  information.  Re- 
specting the  former  I  observe,  that  the  age  of  the  communi- 
cants is  indicated  by  the  several  ordinals  of  the  times,  which 
have  come  down  to  us.  Gregory  in  his  Sacramentarium,  has 
an  order,  in  these  words  — "  Infants  should  be  allowed  to 
suck  the  breast  before  the  holy  communion,  if  necessity  so 
requires."!  The  lenity  of  this  enactment  was  not  always 
permitted.  The  old  Ordo  Romanus,  of  the  ninth  century, 
directs  thus  : — "  Infants,  after  they  are  baptized,  should  not 
eat  any  food,  nor  suck  the  breast,  without  great  necessity,  till 
they  have  communicated  in  the  sacrament  of  the  body  of 
Christ."  Salmasius  observes  on  this  subject — "  It  was  the 
invariable  practice  to  give  to  catechumens  the  eucharist  im- 
mediately after  they  were  baptized.  Afterwards  the  opinion 
prevailed  that  no  one  could  be  saved  unless  he  were  baptized, 
so  the  custom  of  baptizing  infants  was  introduced.  And 
because  to  adult  catechumens,  as  soon  as  they  were  baptized, 
no  space  of  time  intervening,  the  eucharist  was  given,  so 
after  Pedobaptism  was  introduced,  this  was  also  done  in  the 
case  of  infants. "J  As  touching  the  latter,  the  manner  of 
administering  the  Lord's  supper  to  infants,  Hugo  de  Sancto 
Victora,  who  lived  about  A.  D.  1000,  with  other  writers, 
gives  us  full  information.§  The  priest,  he  very  gravely  tells 
us,  dipped  his  finger  into  the  chalice,  and  put  it  into  the 

*  Bossueti  Traile  de  Communion  sous  les  deux  Especes,  part  i.  p.  3, 
apiid  Hinton's  History  of  Baptism,  p.  329. 

t  In  Offic.  Sabt.  Sanct. 

X  In  Libro  De  Consubstantione,  contra  H.  Grotium,  Hinton's  Hist, 
p.  329. 

%  Wall's  History,  8cc.,  vol.  ii.  ch.  9. 


208  REASONS  FOR  STRICT  COMMUNION. 

chiUrs  mouth,  for  him  to  suck.  This  was  the  Latin  custom 
With  the  Greeks,  who  we  are  tokl  still  cling  to^he  practice, 
the  method  was  different.  The  wafer  was  mixed  with  the 
wine,  and  given  in  minute  quantities,  in  the  manner  of  giving 
medicine,  not  to  preserve  the  body  from  disease,  but  to  restore 
the  soul  to  holiness,  and  confer  everlasting  life. 

The  Papists,  and  all  the  Protestants  who  are  or  have  been 
under  this  influence,  have,  as  we  have  already  intimated,  long 
since  abolished  infant  communion.  On  this  subject  Dr.  Wall 
remarks  : — "  The  Roman  church,  about  the  year  one  thou- 
sand, embraced  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  and  an 
excessive  superstition  prevailing  in  relation  to  the  elements  of 
the  eucharist,  they  let  fall  the  custom  of  giving  the  holy  ele- 
ments to  infants.  And  the  other  Western  churches,  mostly 
following  their  example,  did  the  like.  But  the  Greeks — who 
received  this  custom  from  the  Latins — not  having  the  said 
doctrme  [of  transubstantiation]  continued,  and  do  still  con- 
tinue, the  custom  of  communicating  infants."  The  "cus- 
tom," it  is  true,  "  was  fallen  in  the  west,"  still  it  was  not 
formally  abrogated,  until  by  a  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent. 
That  council  repealed  what  former  councils,  popes,  and 
fathers,  time  almost  immemorable,  had  taught  as  a  laiv  of 
God,  and  the  practice  it  involved  as  inculcated  by  apostolical 
authority.  The  reasons  for  its  suppression  will  be  found 
among  their  proceedings  thus  stated  : — "  It  [the  Lord's  sup- 
per] is  not  at  all  necessary  for  them  [infants]  since,  being 
regenerated  by  the  laver  of  baptism,  and  incorporated  into 
Christ,  they  cannot,  in  that  age,  lose  the  grace  of  being  the 
children  of  God,  which  they  have  now  o1)tained." 

Such  are  the  origin,  the  doctrines,  the  forms,  and  present 
condition  of  infant  communion.  "  For  ten  centuries,"  says 
Mr.  Hinton,*  the  idea  of  withholding  one  sacrament  from 

*  Hist.  Blip.  pp.  323,  324. 


SUPPRESSION  OF  INFANT  COM.-^I UNION.  209 

those  who  had  partaken  of  the  other,  even  in  the  case  of 
infants,  had  certainly  never  been  conceived.  This  was  re- 
served for  the  most  corrupt  age  of  the  church  of  Rome,  when 
the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  '  was  come  to  the  full ;'  so 
that  the  Reformers  have  followed  the  corruptions  of  the 
ancient  church  in  giving  baptism  to  infants,  and  the  corrup- 
tions of  modern  Romanism  in  withholding  from  them  the 
Lord's  supper ;  and  then,  in  the  adoption  of  this  compound 
error,  witli  the  facts  of  history  staring  them  full  in  the  face, 
they  ask  the  Baptists  to  follow  them."  When  we  refuse  to 
do  so  they  courteously  pronounce  us  for  our  squeamishness, 
exclusive,  sectarian,  self-riffhteous  bigots.  "  But  none  of 
these  things  move  us."  Kindly,  but  [irmly,  we  must  decline  ; 
and  soon,  we  trust,  there  will  be  no  occasion  for  further  con- 
tention. Infant  communion  has  already  been  nearly  destroyed 
by  the  influence  of  a  like  error,  and  infant  baptism  must  ulti- 
mately fall  by  the  power  of  omnipotent  truth. 

I  have  occupied  more  time  than  was  necessary  to  show 
the  importance  attached  by  the  Papists  to  the  eucharist.  I 
offer  as  an  apology  my  desire  to  illustrate,  somewhat,  the 
collateral  subject  introduced,  from  the  supposition  that  many 
of  our  people  are  without  the  means  of  its  satisfactory  inves- 
tigation. I  will  study  more  bre\ity  in  deciding  the  inquiry 
whether  the  other  Pedobaptist  denominations  attribute  to  this 
sacrament  the  same  unscriptural  efficacy  with  which  it  is 
regarded  by  the  Romanists. 

What  the  Episcopal  church  teaches  her  catechumens  on 
this  subject  we  had  occasion  to  notice  in  the  last  chapter. 
When  asked  : — "  How  many  sacraments  hatli  Christ  ordained 
in  his  church  ?"  they  are  instructed  to  answer,  and  to  believe 
they  answer  truly — "  Two  only,  as  generally  necessary  to 
salvation^  baptism,  and  the  supper  of  the  Lord.''''  After 
what  we  have  before  seen  with  reference  to  this  sect,  noUiing, 
18* 


2li)  REASONS    FOR    STRICT    COMMUNION. 

1  apprclieiid,  need  be  addsd  to  prove  that  they  attach  to  the 
ordinance  in  question,  an  unreasonable  and  unscriptural  effi- 
cacy and  importance. 

The  doctrine  of  all  classes  of  Presbyterians  may  be  learned 
by  the  following  passage  from  their  standards — "  Question 
161.  How  do  the  sacraments  become  effectual  means  of 
SALVATION  ?  Answer.  The  sacraments  become  effectual 
means  of  salvation,  not  by  any  power  in  themselves,  or  any 
virtue  derived  from  the  piety  or  intention  of  him  by  whom 
they  are  administered,  but  only  by  the  working  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  the  blessing  of  Christ  by  whom  they  are  insti- 
tuted."* The  manner  in  which  the  working  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  the  blessing  of  Christ  are  received  in  the  eucha- 
rist,  in  the  next  question  and  answer,  is  explained : — "Ques- 
tion 162.  What  is  a  sacrament?  Answer.  A  sacrament 
is  a  holy  ordinance,  instituted  by  Christ,  in  his  church,  to 
signify,  seal,  and  exhibit,  unto  those  vjho  are  ivithin  the 
Covenant  of  Grace,  the  benefits  of  his  mediation."  We 
are  here  most  certainly  taught  that  the  sacraments  are  effec- 
tual means  of  salvation,  and  that  they  seal  to  those  who 
are  within  the  covenant  of  grace  the  benefits  of  Christ's 
mediation.  All  this  must  surely  render  them  of  unspeakable 
moment  in  the  work  of  salvation. 

The  service  of  the  Methodist  is  nearly  a  transcript  from 
the  Episcopal  church,  from  which  it  originated.  In  the  mat- 
ter before  us  only  some  portions  among  the  most  absurd  are 
omitted,  such  as  sponsors,  and  some  other  accompaniments. 
The  idea,  hoAvever,  that  the  Lord's  supper  is  "  a  means  and 
seal  of  e'race,"  is  professedly  retained  and  carried  out  in  all 
their  mmistrations.  Dr.  Adam  Clark,  it  is  presumed,  speaks 
the  sentiments  of  his  brethren  when  he  says :  "  Every  man 
who  beheves  in  Christ  as  his  atoning  sacrifice,  should,  as 

*  Coufcbaiou  of  Faith,  pp.  284,  2S5. 


A  MEANS  OF  GRACE  AND  SALVATION.        211 

frequently  as  he  can,  receive  the  sacrament  of  tlie  Lord's 
supper.  And  every  minister  of  Christ  is  bound  to  adminis- 
ter it  to  every  man  luho  is  seeking  the  salvation  of  his 
soul,  as  well  as  to  all  believers.  Let  no  man  dare  to  oppose 
tliis  ordinance  ;  and  let  every  man  receive  it  according  to  the 
in>stitution  of  Christ."*  That  the  practice  of  this  denomina- 
tion very  generally  corresponds  with  the  vague  and  unscrip- 
tural  notion  just  quoted,  I  presume,  is  unquestioned.  As  an 
illustration  of  this  remark,  I  wiU  introduce  a  statement  of  one 
of  my  correspondents,  not  long  since  published  in  several 
newspapers,  on  both  sides  of  the  AUeghanies : 

"  During  the  present  summer,  1  attended  a  Methodist  camp 
meeting,  was  in  the  crowd  when  the  Lord's  supper  was  ad- 
ministered, and  persons  were  invited  to  unite  themselves  with 
the  church.  Two  presiding  elders  were  present.  One  of 
them  solicited  those  who  were  professedly  unregenerate  to 
join  the  church  as  a  means  of  regeneration,  and  urged  that 
serious  unconverted  persons  were  more  favorably  situated  to 
be  bom  again  who  were  church  members,  than  those  who 
were  not.  He  narrated  several  cases  of  individuals  wlio 
joined  the  church  as  seekers,  who  were  afterwards  brought 
to  trust  in  Christ,  and  who  had  since  declared  their  convic- 
tion that  had  they  not  done  so,  they  never  would  have  been 
converted.  Among  the  cases  he  mentioned,  one  was  that 
of  a  man  who  had  connected  himself  with  the  church,  was 
baptized,  and  partook  of  the  Lord's  supper,  and  who  ascribed 
his  spiritual  change  to  the  instrumentahty  of  this  latter  sacra- 
m(;nt.  He,  therefore,  invited  all  who  intended  to  join  them 
to  come  to  the  sacred  table  with  them.  That  evening  seven 
persons  came  forward,  their  names  were  registered,  an  invi- 
tation was  gi^^en  to  the  unreo^enerate,  Avho  desired  con'^'ersion, 
to  go  into  the  '  altar '  to  receive  instruction,  and  to  unite  rn 

*  Comm.  on  1  Cor.  xi.  &c. 


212  REASONS   FOR   STRICT    COMMUNION. 

prayer,  when,  to  my  surprise,  six  of  the  seven  went  forward 
and  kneeled.  I  was  asked  by  a  Methodist  why  I  did  not 
partake  of  the  Lord's  supper  with  tliem.  I  replied,  that  if 
T  had  no  other  reason,  the  consideration  would  be  insupera- 
ble, that  the  ordinance  had  that  evening  been  administered 
professedly  as  a  means  of  grace,  regeneration,  and  salva- 
tion, and  that  I  considered  m)'-self  obliged  to  withhold  my 
assent  from  doctrines  so  unscriptural  and  injurious,  and  which 
I  thought  proper  to  evince  by  declining  a  participation." 

This,  doubtless,  is  a  practical  illustration  of  what  they 
suppose  to  be  taught  by  the  Discipline,  and  accords  with  the 
canons  of  Episcopacy,  which  order  that  this  sacrament  shall 
be  ofTered  to  all  men.  Clark*  most  strenuously  contends, 
that  "  There  is  not  a  Popish  priest  under  heaven,  who  denies 
the  cup  to  the  people,  (and  they  all  do  this)  that  can  be  said 
to  celebrate  the  Lord's  supper  at  all ;  nor  is  there  one  of 
their  votaries  that  ever  received  the  holy  sacrament.  All 
pretensions  to  this  is  an  absolute  farce,  so  long  as  the  cup, 
the  emblem  of  the  atoning  blood,  is  denied."  We  agree  with 
him  here,  most  heartily.  But  let  me  ask,  whether  a  dismem- 
berment of  the  eucharist  in  reference  to  its  object  and  design, 
is  not  equally  fatal  with  a  similar  disseverance  of  its  ele- 
ments ?  If  so,  and  I  think  its  truth  is  obvious,  the  doctor's 
conclusion  is  legitimate  against  himself,  and  he  and  his  brethren 
fail,  after  all,  to  receive  the  sacrament  to  which  they  attribute 
such  miraculous  power  and  virtue. 

What,  now,  is  the  sum  of  the  argument  submitted  ?  The 
Romanists  tell  us  there  is  no  eternal  life  without  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  body  of  Christ ;  the  Episcopalians,  that  it  is 
"  necessary  to  salvation  ;"  the  Presbyterian,  that  it  is  an  "  ef- 
fectual means  of  salvation,"  and  "  seals'^  to  the  recipient  "  the 
benefits  of  Christ's  mediation ;"  and  the  Methodist,  that  it  is 

*  Ut  supra. 


OPEN  COMMUNION  I3irUACTICAlJLE.  213 

a  means  of  grace  and  regeneration,  and  as  snch  to  be  admin- 
istered to  every  man  who  is  seeking  the  salvation  of  his 
soul.  Can  all  this  be  true  ?  It  is  impossible.  Is  not  the 
proof,  therefore,  perfectly  conclusive,  that  all  the  Pedobaptist 
denominations  attach  to  the  Lord's  supper  an  unscriptural 
and  unreasonable  degree  of  efficacy  and  importance  ?  If  we 
partake  with  them,  we,  by  that  act,  publicly  profess  that  we 
recognize  their  doctrine  as  correct,  and  in  substance  declare 
that  we  expect  by  it,  not  merely  to  perform  an  act  of  obedi- 
ence, indicative  of  our  love  and  submission  to  Christ,  and  to 
show  his  death  till  he  come,  but  also  to  receive  the  grace  and 
salvation  of  which  they  hold  it  to  be  productive,  and  have 
sealed  to  us  all  the  benefits  of  his  mediation.  That  we  can, 
after  an  understanding  of  the  subject,  do  this,  is  impmctica- 
ble,  without  insincerity,  hypocrisy,  and  sin. 

Thus  we  have  given  our  third  and  last  principal  reason 
why  we  cannot  commune  with  our  brethren  of  the  several 
Pedobaptist  denominations. 

I  might,  indeed,  add  numerous  others  of  minor  import ; 
such  as  that  open  communion  is  incapable  of  being  carried 
mto  existence,  and  is,  as  we  shall  hereafter  see,  not  practised 
even  by  those  who  cISim  so  much  credit  on  the  score  of 
tlieir  liberality.  There  is  no  principle  upon  which  it  can  be 
conducted.  Who  are  we  to  receive  ?  If  it  is  replied,  aU 
Christians,  the  difficulty  is  not  removed.  How  are  we  to 
know  who  are  Christians  ?  We  cannot,  at  such  a  time,  stop 
to  examine  candidates.  The  same  remarks  are  appUcable 
with  regard  to  our  intercourse  with  the  several  sects  around 
us.  If  we  receive  the  members  of  two,  or  three,  or  four 
denominations,  and  reject  others,  we  are  still  on  close  com- 
munion grounds,  and  yet  subject  to  all  the  reproach  which 
has  hitherto  been  heaped  upon  us.  Shall  we  admit  all  who 
have  taken  upon  them  the  Christian  name  1     This,  I  pre- 


214  REASONS    FOR    STRICT    COMMUNION. 

Slime,  will  be  considered  out  of  die  quesdon.  Open  commu- 
nion is  also  wholly  subversive  of  all  ecclesiasdcal  discipline. 
The  church  which  adopts  it  must  immediately  renounce  the 
hope  of  preserving  any  order  among  her  members.  Exclude 
whom  slie  will  from  her  fellowship,  he  has  only  to  go  and 
join  some  oilier  denomination,  a  course  constantly  adopted, 
and  for  which  every  facility  is  held  out,  and  the  next  Lord's 
day  he  returns  and  communes  with  the  church,  no  longer 
expelled.     But  I  will  not  multiply  considerations. 

Let  us  recapitulate  this  part  of  our  subject.  We  have 
seen  that  we  cannot  commune  with  our  Pedobaptist  brethren 
because,  in  the  first  place,  to  do  so  we  must  either  actually 
renounce,  or  practically  falsify,  all  our  principles  in  reladoii 
to  both  bapdsm  and  the  Lord's  supper ;  because,  in  the 
second  place,  they  have  not  been  bapuzed ;  and  because,  in 
the  third  place,  they  attach  to  each  of  the  sacraments  an  un- 
scriptural  and  unreasonable  efficacy  and  importance.  We 
have  determined,  therefore,  as  individuals,  and  as  churches, 
and,  I  believe,  have  determined  wisely,  to  be  guided,  in  this, 
as  well  as  every  other  duty,  alone  by  the  law  of  Christ,  and 
are  prepared  cheerfully  to  meet  all  the  consequences  attend- 
ant upon  undeviating  fidelity. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE  POLICY  OF   FREE  COMMUNION  CONSIDERED,  AND    SHOWN 
TO  BE  DISASTROUS  TO  THE  CHURCH. 

Close  communion  is  odious — the  Church  would  be  more  prosperous 
were  it  abandoned — Argument  from  reason — from  facts — Prirx-iplea 
of  free  communion  Baptists — Results  of  the  practice — Bunyan'3 
church — Foster's — Hall's — Giles'  instances — Open  communion  aban- 
doned by  its  advocates — Close  communion  most  consistent  with  pros- 
perity and  harmony. 

The  opinion  has  been  entertained,  and  often  expressed,  by 
Baptists  and  others,  that,  notwitlistanding  all  we  have  said, 
if  the  church  w^ould  adopt  the  pohcy  of  open  communion, 
she  would  be  more  prosperous  and  happy.  TJiis  impres- 
sion, together  with  the  disposition  to  shrink  from  the  odium 
attached  to  our  present  practice,  has,  in  some  places,  prevailed 
so  extensively  that  whole  congregations  have  been  strongly 
inclined  to  overturn  the  barriers  that  surround  us,  and  adopt 
the  liberal  system  so  much  eulogized.  "  The  first  effect,'* 
says  Mr.  Hall,  appealing  to  the  denomination  in  advocacy  of 
the  course  sug'gested,  "  necessarily  resulting  from  restricted 
communion,  is  a  popular  prejudice  against  the  party  whicli 
adopts  it."  He  adds  : — "  From  him  who  is  truly  solicitous 
to  extend  the  triumphs  of  truth,  we  should  expect  notliing 
would  be  more  abhorrent  than  such  a  system" "  It  an- 
swers no  other  purpose  than  to  make  ourselves  unpopular." 

That  the  practice  of  restricted  communion  lias  been,  with 
many  persons,  rendered  extremely  odious,  and  that  in  various 
quarters  it  is  most  unpopular,  is  readily  conceded.  The 
9ti-ongcst  prejudices  of  the  human  heart  have  been  called  forth, 

215 


2lG  TITE   POMCY  OP 

and  set  in  an  array  against  it.  All  the  ministers,  and  people, 
without  exception,  whatever  they  may  have  yielded  in  pri- 
vate, or  through  tlie  press,  of  every  denomination  around  us, 
have  industriously  employed  their  whole  energies  during  the 
last  fifty  years,  to  create  and  fix  this  odium,  this  prejudice, 
this  unpopularity,  and  they  have  been  but  too  successful. 
But  does  any  one  on  this  account  think  for  a  moment  of  M- 
tering  in  his  course  ?  If  so  I  must  confess,  and  I  do  not 
regret  it,  that  with  him  I  have  no  sympathy.  I  ask  not,  I 
never  will  ask,  whether  any  doctrine  or  practice  of  mine  is 
odious  or  unpopular..  All  I  wish  to  know  is,  whether  it 
embodies  that  truth  and  righteousness  which  God  has  re- 
vealed. If  I  find  it  to  be  so,  no  earthly  consideration  shall 
deter  me  from  a  strict  and  hearty  obedience.  Had  the  apos- 
tles, the  primitive  Christians,  and  early  martyrs,  shrunk  from 
the  odium  of  the  Christian  profession,  then  so  unpopular  and 
withering,  vv^here  would  now  have  been  the  religion  of  Christ  ? 
Is  the  close  communion  that  we  pfractise,  which  by  the  way 
'  Ave  intend  presently  to  show  is  the  most  open  and  liberal 
communion  existing,  odious  ?  Why  should  it  be  so  ?  Is 
it  on  account  of  the  principles  which  govern  us,  or  the  con- 
sequences to  which  these  principles  lead  us  ?  They  are 
botli  the  same  in  many  respects  which  are  professed  by  all 
other  Christian's.  They  too  require  faith  and  baptism  as  the 
terms  of  communion !  What  more  do  we  ?  What  then 
can  it  be  that  is  so  repugnant  ?  It  is  our  baptism.  To  de- 
stroy this  is,  after  all,  the  great  object  for  which  they  labor. 
Is  any  Baptist  prepared  to  barter  an  ordinance  of  Christ  for 
a  miserable  popularity  ?  Do  we  not  in  all  these  respects  act 
in  accordance  with  the  law  of  the  Redeemer  ?  To  avoid 
the  odium  of  obedience,  must  we  become  transgressors? 
Miist  we  fear  and  honor  men  more  than  God,  and  that  too, 
not  to  advance  truth,  but  to  screen  ourselves  from  the  oppro- 


OPEN  COMMUNION.  217 

brill m  of  perverted  minds  ?  While  the  odium  of  the  cross 
is  remembered,  which  Jesus  Christ  bore  to  redeem  us,  let 
me  never  be  told  of  the  unpopularity  which  may  attacli  to 
that  obedience  requisite  to  preserve  the  purity  of  his  sacra- 
ments. 

Does  the  reason  of  the  case  lead  us  to  the  conclusion  that 
were  the  church  to  adopt  the  open  communion  policy  she 
would  be  more  prosperous  and  happy  ?  I  presume  not.  Is 
it  lawful  to  commune  with  any  but  baptized  persons  ?  Cer- 
tainly it  is  not.  Is  the  immersion  in  water,  of  a  believer,  by 
a  properly  authorized  minister,  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  only  baptism  ? 
All  Baptists  reply  in  the  affirmative.  Then  Pedobaptists  are 
not  baptized.  To  commune  with  them,  therefore,  is  to  vio- 
late the  law  of  Christ.  If  promiscuous  communion  is  in 
contravention  of  the  law  of  God,  how  can  it  be  productive 
of  an  increased  degree  of  prosperity  and  happiness  ?  Did 
not  Christ  know  wliat  is  best  for  us,  and  for  his  cause,  and 
did  he  frame  the  rules  of  his  word  in  conflict  with  the  in- 
terests of  his  people  ?  Shall  we  consult  the  advancement 
of  his  church  by  violating  the  laws  which  he  has  enacted  for 
her  government  ?  It  is  impossible.  On  the  principles  of 
reason,  therefore,  open  communion  cannot  be  good  policy. 

Unibrtunntely  for  the  happiness  of  the  church,  and  for  the 
advocates  of  "  the  liberal  policy,"  we  are  not  left  to  be  guided 
in  this  matter  alone  by  the  doubtful  lisfht  of  reason.  We  are 
furnished  by  autlientic  history  with  the  means  of  setthng, 
definitely,  the  question  whether  the  practice  we  debate  is 
favorable  to  the  prosperity  of  tlie  church.  The  experiment 
has  been  tried,  and  it  has  most  signally  failed.  In  England 
there  is,  and  has  been  ever  since  the  days  of  John  Bunyan, 
Toombs,  and  others  equally  popular,  a  considerable  number 
of  "Free  Communion  Baptists."  Have  thcv  prospered  or 
J9 


218  B\n  POLICY  OF 

ileclined  ?    The  answer  to  this  inquiry  will  solve  the  problem 
now  under  consideration. 

It  is  proper  here  to  remark  tliat  tliese  ministers  and 
churelies  have  been  immeasurably  applauded,  as  p^reat,  leanied, 
and  liberal.  Their  works,  especially  Uiose  of  Bunyan  and 
Hall,  have  been  industriously  circulated  by  Pedobaptists,  and 
profusely  quoted  against  us.  That  they  deserved  all  the 
reputation  that  has  been  accorded  them  I  doubt  not.  But 
"we  would  remind  our  Pedobaptist  brethren,  that  open  com- 
munion Baptists  difler  much  more  widely  from  them  in  prin- 
ciple than  we  do,  and,  therefore,  ought  to  be  regarded  with 
less  favor.  Tliey,  as  sincerely  as  ourselves,  believe  Pedo- 
baptists to  be  unbaptized.  "  We  are  compelled,"  says  Mr. 
Hall,  and  Bunyan  and  others  concur  in  the  same  sentiment, 
"  We  are  compelled  to  look  upon  the  mass  of  our  fellow 
Christians  as  unbaptized."*  They  justify  their  practice  on 
one  of  two  grounds,  or  on  both,  either  that  baptism  is  not  a 
prerequisite  to  communion,  or  that  Pedobaptists  are  weak 
and  deluded,  but  sincere,  and  to  be  admitted  in  compassion 
for  their  simplicity.  Says  Mr.  Hall,t  "  The  apostles  admit- 
ted the  weak  and  erroneous,  providing  their  errors  were  not 
subversive  of  Christianity.  We  do  precisely  the  same." 
And  ±  "  The  only  method  of  arriving  at  a  satisfactory  con- 
clusion is  to  consider  how  the  aposdes  conducted  themselves 
towards  smcere  though  erring  Christians,  together  with  din 
temper  they  recommend  us  to  cuUivate  towards  such  as  labor 
\mder  mistakes  and  misconceptions  not  inconsistent  with 
piety."  In  the  former  case — the  supposition  diat  baptism  is 
not  one  of  die  terms  of  communion — if  what  in  a  former 
chapter  we  have  seen  to  be  the  faith  of  all  nations  and  tiffrs 
is  to  be  respected,  diey  have  embraced  an  error,  and  Pedo- 
baptists ought  to  continue,  as  they  have  done  heretofore,   to 

='  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  212.  t  Ibid.  j).  216.  \  Ibid.  p.  217. 


FUEE  COiMMUxMOxV.  219 

bear  their  testimony  against  it.  In  the  latter,  I  should  think 
their  position  much  more  repugnant  than  ours.  Are  our 
brethren  of  other  churches  so  ready  to  confess  themselves 
weak,  deluded,  and  imbecile  ?  And  even  if  it  is  so,  the  argu- 
ment is  nothing  more  than  the  absurdity,  that  if  a  man  sin- 
cerely believes  a  thing  to  be  right  to  him  it  is  right,  thus 
substituting  sincerity  for  obedience,  and  fostering  a  deception 
hurtful  to  truth  and  righteousness.  Will  Pedobaptists  accept 
communion  on  either  of  these  grounds  ?  They  may,  never- 
theless, find  it  convenient,  on  account  of  certain  advantages 
they  imagine  to  be  held  out  by  open  communion  arguments, 
to  give  their  verdict  in  their  favor,  and  extol  the  hberality  and 
wisdom  of  their  authors,  while  they  take  good  care  not  to 
adopt  the  principles  upon  which  they  are  based. 

But  Ave  return  to  the  inquiry,  whether  open  communion 
Baptist  churches  have  been  particularly  prosperous.  To 
those  familiar  with  Baptist  history,  the  fact  is  well  known, 
that,  notwithstanding  all  the  advantages  of  popular  prejudices 
in  their  favor — if  these  can  be  considered  advantages — and 
the  advocacy  of  the  most  learned  and  eloquent  men  the  world 
ever  saw,  these  churches  have,  to  say  to  least,  gained  nothing 
by  the  practice,  either  in  numbers,  respectability,  piety  or 
mfluence.*  This  fact  may  be  demonstrated  by  an  examina- 
tion of  Ivimy,  Kinghorn,  the  younger  Fuller,  and  other  wri- 
ters on  the  subject.  Even  Mr.  Hall  himself  has  unwittingly 
borne  testimony  in  favor  of  this  statement.  Referring  to  the 
progress  of  Baptist  principles  in  England,  as  open  commu- 
nion gained  ground,  he  remarks — "  It  may  be  doubted  whe- 
ther, since  the  recent  revival  of  religion,  our  progress  is  in  a 
fair  proportion  with  that  of  other  denominations.  It  may 
be  possible  to  assign  the  second  causes  of  this  remarkable 

*  This  fact  is  elaborately,  and  incontrovertibly,  sustained  in  the  lata 
English  edition  of  this  work,  bv  the  learned  editors. 


2**0  BAD   POLICY   OF 

cvoiit,  but  :is  second  causes  are  always  subservioiit  to  the 
iiilL'iilions  of  the  first,  it  deserves  our  serious  consideration 
whether  we  are  not  laboring  under  the  frown  of  the  great 
Head  of  tlie  church  ;  and  'is  there  not  a  cause  V  A  visible 
inferiority  to  oilier  Christians  in  zeal  and  piety  will  hardly 
be  imputed  ;  nor  have  we  been  left  destitute  of  that  compe- 
tent measure  of  learning  and  talent  re(iuisite  to  the  support 
of  our  doctrines.  The  cause  of  the  faiUire  then  is  not  to  be 
looked  for  from  that  quarter."*  The  learned  writer  wished 
to  make  the  impression  that  the  denomination  was  suffering 
because  so  few  had  embraced  his  favorite  doctrines,  but  the 
evil  is  now  seen  evidently  to  liavc  had  its  origin  in  the  extent 
to  which  they  liad  been  acted  upon  by  the  churches,  and  the 
consequent  agitation  and  disorganization  with  which  they 
were  attended. 

Let  us,  however,  descend  to  somewhat  more  of  particu- 
larity. The  fatlier,  1  suppose  we  may  so  call  him,  of  open 
communion,  was  the  justly  celebrated  John  Bunyan,  author 
of  the  Pilgrim's  Progress,  and  numerous  other  reputable 
works.  He  was  pastor  of  the  Baptist  church  in  Bedford 
England.  This  venerable  church  admitted  Pedobaptists,  and 
as  they  were  allowed  all  other  privileges  they  could  not  be 
denied  membership,  or  what  was  the  same  thing,  the  right 
of  suffrage  in  the  church-meetings,  for  it  would  be  prepos- 
terous habitually  to  commune  with  a  man  and  then  not  per- 
mit him  to  vote  in  ordinary  matters,  rivaling  to  the  order  and 
instruction  of  the  congregation.  Tlie  Bedford  church  was 
not  so  illiberal.  But  the  consequences  were  fatal.  Tlie 
Pedobaptist  party  soon  became  the  most  numerous.  On  tlie 
discovery  of  this  fact,  they  immediately  took  effectual  mea- 
sures, routed  the  Baptists,  took  possession  of  tlie  meeting- 
house, called  a  Pedobaptist  pastor,  and  from  that  time  liava 

*  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  339. 


FREE  COMMUNION.  231 

generally  held  possession.  "  Such  was  the  state  of  the 
church,"  says  Mr.  Kiughorn,  "with  which  he  was  long 
connected,  that  on  his  death  they  chose  a  Pedobaptist ;  and 
from  die  year  1688,  in  which  he  died,  to  the  year  1788, 
when  Mr.  Joshua  Symonds  died  (one  hundred  years),  the 
ministers  who  succeeded  him  were  Pcdobaptisfs,  except  the 
last,  who,  some  years  after  liis  settlement  with  the  church, 
changed  his  sentiments  and  became  a  Baptist.  Tliis  took 
place  in  1772,  and  though  Mr.  Symonds  continued  at  Bed- 
ford, it  was  on  condition  that  he  should  not  introduce  the 
controversy  [on  baptism]  into  the  pulpit,  nor  into  conversa- 
tion, unless  it  was  first  mentioned  by  others.  We  have  also 
been  informed  that  one  instance  occurred  in  1700,  and  another 
in  1724,  in  which  the  church  refused  to  grant  a  dismission  to 
members  who  desired  to  unite  with  Baptist  churches  in 
London,  because  they  were  sh-ict  communion  churches."* 
Mr.  Symonds  was  succeeded  by  Pedobaptist  ministers. 
Here  is  a  practical  illustration  of  the  advantages  of  open 
communion.     Take  another. 

The  Rev.  James  Foster,  D.  D.,  was,  during  more  than 
twenty  years,  pastor  of  the  Baptist  church  in  Barbicon 
Place,  London.  "In  his  day,"  says  Mr.  Kinghorn,t  "he 
advocated  the  cause  of  mixed  communion."  The  conse- 
quence was,  "he  left  the  Baptists,  and  (without  changing  his 
principles — ^still  a  Baptist  minister)  accepted  the  pastoral 
charge  of  the  Independent  Church  at  Pinner's  Hall."  What 
were  the  practical  advantages  ?  The  Barbicon  church  could 
have  received  no  benefit  by  his  withdrawal ;  Mr.  Grantham 
Chillino-worth  assures  us  not  one  member  of  the  Pinner's 
Hall  church  ever  was  baptized ;  and  thus  the  serAices  of 
Foster  were  wholly  lost  to  the  Baptist  denomination.  Yet 
Mr.  Hall  says  :  "  Of  the  tendency  of  mixed  communion  to 

*  Delcncc,  Pieiace,  p.  15.  t  Ut  supra. 


222  BAO  POLICY  OF 

promote  a  more  candid  inquiry  into  our  principles,  it  is 
scarcely  possible  to  doubt." 

Tlie  church  in  Leicester,  of  which  Mr.  Hall  was  pastor, 
and  afterwards  tliat  in  Bristol,  to  wliich  he  removed,  notwith- 
standing their  free  communion,  and  the  unrivalled  eloquence, 
amazing  learning,  unaffected  piety,  and  unprecedented  popu- 
larity of  their  minister,  who  wrote  on  the  subject  the  most 
elaborate  works  wliich  have  ever  been  published,  were  no 
more  numerous  or  flourishing  than  many  other  churches  of 
fewer  advantages,  and  who  practised  close  communion.  I 
have  the  best  authority  for  the  remark — that  of  a  clerical  eye- 
witness, the  Rev.  Jonathan  Davis,  author  of  the  History  of 
the  Welsh  Baptists — that  in  this  church  not  a  single  Pedo- 
baptist  habitually  communed,  nor  was  it  to  have  been  ex- 
pected, unless,  as  in  the  case  of  Bunyan,  they  were  assured 
tliey  could  take  possession  of  the  church,  and  succeed  its 
Baptist  pastor  with  a  minister  of  their  own. 

"  Mr.  Giles,"  says  Fuller,  in  his  Conversations,*  "  in  his 
very  interesting  Letters  to  Rev.  Robert  Hall,t  presents  us 
with  some  striking  exemplifications  of  the  tendency  of  both 
mixed  and  strict  communion.  The  following,"  he  says, 
*'  have  come  under  my  own  observation : 

"  *  In  a  town  in  the  south  of  our  island,  a  most  serious 
division  took  place  in  our  Independent  congregation.  Sixty 
or  more  of  its  members  separated  from  their  brethren,  attended 
the  Baptist  meeting-house,  and  expressed  their  desire  to  join 
in  communion  with  the  church.  The  Baptists,  from  a  wish 
to  evince  their  brotherly  affection,  and  from  a  confident  per- 
suasion that  such  an  act  of  liberaHty  would  not  fail  to  be  fol- 
lowed with  conviction,  at  least  among  some  of  th-cse  mistaken 
brethren,  agi'eed  to  alter  their  terms  of  communion,  and  receive 
tliem.     Some  of  their  members,  and  some  of  their  neighbour- 

*Pp,  250,  251.  t  Pp.  63-65. 


FULli  COMMUNION.  223 

ing  ministers  and  brethren  remonstrated  with  them,  and  as- 
sured them  the  result  would  prove  to  be  the  opposite  to  what 
they  expected.  But  these  remonstrances  were  disregarded, 
and  the  liberal  plan  adopted,  with  a  confident  persuasion  of 
its  success.  This  mixed  fellowship  continued  for,  I  believe, 
a  year  and  a  half,  or  more ;  but  not  one  of  the  Pedobaptists 
could  see  baptism  to  be  of  sufficient  importance  to  submit  to 
it !  At  last  some  Independent  minister,  from  the  kindest  mo- 
tives, no  doubt,  attempted,  and  really  effected,  a  reconciliation 
between  the  remaining  members  of  the  church  and  the  breth- 
ren that  had  seceded,  the  result  of  which  was,  that  every  one 
of  them  returned  to  his  own  fold,  leaving  the  Baptists  without 
the  accession  of  a  single  member  from  them  !  There  is  no 
one  but  would  rejoice  in  such  a  reconciliation ;  but  it  assur- 
edly proves  that  your  doctrine  of  expediency  is  not  so  certain 
in  its  results  as  you  would  have  us  believe.  I  think  I  might 
venture  to  affirm,  from  what  I  have  experienced,  that  had 
this  church  stood  firm  to  its  own  previous  system,  some  of 
those  Pedobaptists  would  have  been  induced  so  to  examine 
the  subject  of  baptism,  that  conviction  would  have  followed, 
and  that  they  would  have  been  baptized. 

" '  I  am   acquainted  w4th  another  church  at , 

This  church,  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  a  few  unbaptized 
persons,  altered  its  constitution.  The  consequence  was,  that 
as  soon  as  the  alteration  was  made,  as  many  baptized  breth- 
ren withdrew  as  unbaptized  persons  joined.  This  church 
has  tried  your  plan  for  some  years,  and,  strange  as  it  may 
appear,  though  it  retains  these  Pedobaptists  in  communion, 
it  has  resolved  never  to  receive  another  unbaptized  person  into 
fellowship.  The  reason  for  this  extraordinary  resolution, 
given  both  by  the  minister  and  some  of  its  members,  was, 
tliat  they  had  tried  and  proved  the  inexpediency  of  mixed 
communion,  and  on  that  inexpediency  alone  had  resolved  in 


224  BAD  POLICY  OF 

future  to  prevent  it.  This,  sir,  is  another  matter  of  fact 
against  the  expediency  of  your  theory. 

" '  The  last  that  I  shall  mention,  and  which  I  had  related 
to  me  very  recendy  by  the  pastor  of  the  church,  forms  the 
opposite  of  the  two  cases  already  stated.  At an  un- 
happy division  took  place  in  an  Independent  congregation, 
which  resulted  in  the  ultimate  removal  of  its  pastor.  Many 
of  this  congregation  united  in  worship  with  the  Baptists. 
The  Baptists  retained  their  accustomed  terms  of  strict  com- 
munion ;  and  several  of  these  Pedobaptists  have  been  bap- 
tized, have  joined  the  church,  and  now  rank  among  its  m.ost 
pious,  active,  and  useful  members.  These  cases,  sir,  confirm 
the  truth  of  the  adage,  '  honesty  is  the  best  policy,'  and  of 
the  maxim  that  '  what  is  morally  wrong  can  never  be  politi- 
cally right.'  " 

Such  is  a  fair  example,  drawn  from  experiments  and  facts, 
connected  with  their  history,  of  the  benefits  derived  from  open 
communion  by  the  churches  who  have  adopted  it.  I  am  as- 
sured by  a  reverend  brother,  formerly  of  London,  now  of 
Virginia,  himself  a  disciple  of  the  liberal  school,  that  so  well 
convinced  are  many  of  the  churches  in  that  metropolis  and 
other  parts  of  Britain,  that  free  communion  is  bad  policy, 
that  they  have  alone  on  this  ground  abandoned  it.  And  is 
the  opinion  still  entertained  by  any  man  that  there  are  many 
persons  who,  but  for  our  close  communion,  would  cordially 
unite  with  us,  and  who  on  that  account  join  other  denomina- 
tions ?  We  are,  it  is  true,  often  approached  by  individuals 
in  language  like  the  following:  I  agree  w^ith  you  in  all  your 
great  and  essential  doctrines.  I  am  pleased  with  your  ad- 
mirable and  Scriptural  form  of  ecclesiastical  government; 
your  truly  primitive,  solemn  and  impressive  baptism ;  your 
piety,  your  zeal,  and  your  principles  and  practice  generally. 
I  am  a  Baptist  in  sentiment.     But  your  dose  conimunion — 


FKKL   COMMUNION.  '^i'^,  • 

1  cannot  boar  tliat.  0,  it  is  horrible,  liorriblc.  I  would  jcjin 
you  but  for  this  feature  iu  your  discipline;  but  as  it  is  I  can- 
not. I  must  unite  with  some  other  church !  Now  this 
man,  perhaps,  is  sincere.  He  probably  really  thinks  that 
but  for  this  obstacle  he  would  be  a  Baptist.  I  for  one,  how- 
ever, do  not  believe  it.  The  persons  who  talk  thus  generally 
want  some  excuse  to  offer  to  their  consciences  for  not  obey- 
ing the  truth,  and  here  they  imagine  they  have  found  it. 
They  are  not  accustomed  to  analyze  the  feelings  of  their  own 
hearts.  They  would,  could  they  be  persuaded  to  scrutinize 
their  motives,  soon  perceive  that  they  are  influenced  by  otlier 
considerations,  and  this  is  presented  only,  and  probably  in- 
voluntarily, for  the  double  purpose  of  making  a  show  of 
friendship,  and  of  concealing,  almost  if  not  quite,  even  from 
themselves,  the  real  considerations  which  impel  them  from 
us.  But  some  good,  simple-hearted  brother  listens  attentive- 
ly to  the  story,  and  gives  it  entire  credence.  His  soul  is  sad. 
He  regrets  to  lose,  on  any  account,  from  his  church,  a  man 
who,  in  his  opinion,  would  make  so  good  a  member ;  and, 
forgetting  that  appearances  are  deceptive,  is  strongly  moved 
to  regard  our  practice  as  impohtic  and  injurious.  The  facts, 
however,  now  before  us,  teach  us  another  and  a  wiser  lesson. 
They  prove  conclusively  that  when  Pedobaptists  are  invited 
and  even  urged  to  come  to  the  sacred  table  with  us,  they 
refuse  to  comply,  unless  as  a  matter  of  self-advantage,  and 
that  scarcely  an  individual  would  join  us  as  open  communion- 
ists  who  would  not  and  does  not,  under  existing  circum- 
stances. 

Of  the  great  Baptist  family  in  the  United  States,  some 
small  fractions,  the  Free  Will  churches  for  example,  practise 
unrestricted  communion.  They  are  pious,  intelligent,  and 
zealous,  but  are  they  more  popular,  prosperous,  or  happy, 
tliaii  we  are  ?     It  will  not  be  considered  invidious,  every  one 


226  BAD  POLICY  OP 

knows  it  to  be  true,  if  I  reply  that  they  are  not.  The  op- 
posite, indeed,  is  the  fact.  Little  churches  have  sprung  up 
in  several  states,  at  different  times,  upon  the  free  communion 
principle,  lliey  have  had  talented  and  laborious  ministers, 
and  pious  and  efficient  members.  But  they  have  invariably 
dwindled,  and  in  a  few  years  ceased  to  exist.  Such  has  been, 
and  such  I  apprehend  ever  will  be,  the  history  of  churches 
conducted  upon  this  principle.  Do  these  effects  occur  with- 
out an  adequate  cause  to  produce  them  ?  I  presume  not. 
Do  these  facts  prove  that  to  free  communion  is  attached  the 
quality  of  attracting  and  retaining  members  in  the  Baptist 
church  ? 

These  actual  experiments  and  facts  are  sufficient  to  con- 
vince any  reasonable  inquirer  that  free  communion  never,  on 
the  one  hand,  leads  to  prosperity,  and  that,  on  the  other,  it 
seldom  fails  to  detract  materially  from  the  concord  and  hap- 
piness of  its  supporters.  Indeed,  in  Europe,  as  we  have 
seen,  where  its  efficacy  has  been  tested  on  a  large  scale,  the 
very  brethren  who  still  believe  it  to  be  right  m  principle, 
have,  nevertheless,  from  the  conviction  that  in  policy  it  is  in- 
jurious to  the  best  interests  of  truth  and  righteousness, 
abandoned  it  in  practice.  But,  shall  I  respectfully  inquire 
how  that  can  be  right  in  principle  which  is  wrong  in  policy? 
If  the  Bible  is  the  exclusive  rule  for  our  conduct,  and  the 
immersion  of  a  believer  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity  is 
the  only  baptism,  both  of  which  propositions  all  Baptists 
most  firmly  believe  ;  and  if,  as  is  admitted  by  Pedobaptists 
of  every  gi'ade  and  denomination,  baptism  is  an  indispensable 
preliminary  to  communion,  how  can  it  be  lawful  to  join  in 
this  sacrament  with  those  who  have  only  been  sprinkled,  and 
who  received  even  that  unauthorized  ceremony  in  unconscious 
infancy  ?  That  it  is  in  conflict  with  the  law  of  God  I  must 
ever  believe.     Can  Baptists,  then,  reasonably  expect  to  bo 


FRF.F,  coMMirxroN.  2*27 

prosperous  and  happy  in  a  practice  which  sets  aside  divine 
authority,  and  is  regulated  by  perverted  and  mistaken  views 
of  mere  expediency  ?  All  experience  proves,  and  its  testi- 
mony is  corroborated  by  reason  and  revelation,  that  the  hope 
is  vain  and  delusive.  Are  the  dictates  of  our  own  prudence 
a  better  guide  in  religious  duties  than  the  word  of  God? 
Wisdom,  benevolence,  brotherly  love,  do  they  require  for 
their  full  and  perfect  exercise  a  disregard  of  the  instructions 
of  him  who  said : — "  If  you  love  me  keep  my  command- 
ments?" What  Baptist  is  there  who  can  subscribe  to  an 
opinion  so  monstrous  ?  How  then  can  we  account  for  the 
fact  that  some  of  our  most  esteemed  brethren  have  advocated 
and  practised  open  communion  ?  Is  it  a  violation  of  charity 
to  surmise  that,  unconsciously,  they  may  have  been  under 
the  influence  of  the  same  motives  which  have  led  the  Pedo- 
baptist  world  to  persevere  in  unending  declam.ation  aofainst 
what  they  are  pleased  to  caU  our  bigotry  and  unchristian  ex- 
clusiveness  ?  Not  so  much  a  love  for  truth,  as  an  overween- 
ing desire  for  popular  applause  ! 

*'  0  popular  applause  !  what  heart  of  man 
Is  proof  against  tliy  sweet  seducing  charms  ? 
The  wisest  and  the  best  feel  urgent  need 
Of  all  their  caution  in  thy  gentlest  gales; 
But  swelled  into  a  gust,  who  then,  alas  ! 
With  all  their  canvas  set,  and  inexpert, 
And,  therefore,  heedless,  can  withstand  thy  power  !'* 


CHAPTER  XV. 

BAPTISTS,  AFTER  ALL,  ARE  MORE  FREE  AND  LIBERAL  IN 
THEIR  COMMUNION  THAN  ANY  CLASS  OF  PED0BAPTIST9 
WHATEVER. 

Baptists  are  not  the  only  close  communionists — Betv/een  Pedobaptists 
of  different  sects  there  is  no  more  love  or  union  than  between  them 
and  ourselves — All  Pedobaptists  exclude  from  the  Lord's  Table  two 
thirds  oPtheir  own  members — Episcopacy — Episcopal  and  Protestant 
Methodists — New  and  Old  School  Presbyterians — Present  contro- 
versy on  that  subject  in  the  Pedobaptist  churches,  Acts  of  Synods, 
&c. — The  tone  of  the  religious  press — Inconsistency. 

Sacramental  communion  as  practised  by  our  church  has 
been  uniformly  denounced  by  all  other  denominations,  gene- 
rally with  earnestness,  often  witli  great  bitterness,  as  "  an 
antichristian  dogma,"  guided  and  influenced  alone  by  "  the 
bigoted  and  exclusive  spirit  of  sectarianism" — as  "  the  impo- 
tent and  deformed  spirit  of  proscriptive  and  sectarian  bigotry." 
Such  is  the  language  which  every  where  meets  our  eyes  in 
books  and  periodicals,  and  which  we  are  condemned  to  hear 
uttered  even  from  the  head  of  the  holy  table  itself,  when  we 
are  so  unfortunate  as  to  stray  into  a  Pedobaptist  assembly  at 
the  time  of  the  administration  of  this  ordinance.  Do  we, 
when  our  principles  and  practice  are  candidly  compared  with 
theirs,  merit  from  them  these  unbounded  denunciations  ?  So 
far  are  we  from  it  in  fact,  that  it  is  my  intention  now,  as  I 
have  before  intimated  I  would  do,  to  prove,  in  the  face  of  all 
that  has  been  said  and  believed  on  the  subject,  that  we  are 
more  free  and  liberal  in  our  communion  than  are  any  class 
of  Pedobaptists  whatever.  If  we  sustain  ourselves  in  this 
228 


BAPTISTS  MORF.  FREE  THAN  PEDOBAPTTSTS.  229 

attorn pt,  niid  the  consideration  is  of  any  importance,  we  shall 
take  it  for  granted  that  we  are  entitled  to  credit  for  a  superior 
degree  of  liberahty. 

We  had  occasion  to  remark  in  the  outset,  that  Christian 
communion,  in  its  largest  sense,  "  extends  to  all  the  modes 
by  which  believers  recognize  each  other  as  mernbers  of  a 
common  head.  Every  expression  of  fraternal  regard,  every 
participation  in  the  enjoyments  of  social  worship,  every  in- 
stance of  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  exerted  in  prayer  and  sup- 
plication, or  in  acts  of  Christian  sympathy  and  friendship," 
truly  belongs  to  the  communion  of  the  saints.  Who  are 
more  ready  to  acknowledge  the  Christian  character  of  our 
brethren  of  other  denominations  than  ourselves  ?  Do  we 
not  feel  as  much  fraternal  regard  for  them  ;  as  ardendy  par- 
ticipate with  them  in  social  worship,  and  in  efforts  to  save 
sinners ;  and  give  as  unequivocal  testimonies  of  sincere  sym- 
pathy and  friendship  as  any  of  them  do  towards  each  other  ? 
In  these  particulars  we  are  certainly  not  inferior  to  any  of 
our  opponents,  and  are,  therefore,  to  say  the  least,  as  free 
and  liberal  in  our  communion  But  in  sacramental  inter- 
course— in  this,  M'e  are  told,  we  do  not  unite.  But  we  are 
ready  to  meet  them  all  there  also,  as  we  do  everywhere  else, 
provided  they  will  come  according  to  the  acknowledged  laws 
which  Christ  has  enacted  for  the  government  of  the  feast 
But  even  at  the  Lord's  table  we  are  not  the  only  close  com- 
munionists  ;  indeed,  in  this  particular,  we  do  not  hesitate  to 
say  that  we  are  still  more  free  and  liberal  than  any  of  the 
sects  around  us.  Does  any  one  express  surprise  to  hear 
the  remark  now  made  ?  Does  he  reply,  I  know  of  no  close 
communionists  but  Baptists — all  the  other  denominations 
hold  and  practise  free  communion  ?  I  answer,  no,  sir ;  I 
presume  not.  At  any  rate  the  inquiry  is  worthy  of  a  candid 
examination. 

20 


230  NO  COMMUNION  AMONG  THE  SECTS. 

Do  Episcopalians  or  Roman  Catholics  usnally  receive— 
do  their  clergy  ever  receive — the  Lord's  supper  at  the  hands 
of  Presbyterian  or  Methodist  ministers  ?  Every  one  knows 
that  they  hold  and  teach  that  such  ministers  are  without 
ordination,  have,  therefore,  no  authority  to  officiate  in  sacra- 
ments, and  that  when  they  do,  it  is  a  mere  lay  administration. 
These  Calvinistic  and  Wesleyan  offices,  with  the  sage  advo- 
cates of  apostolical  succession  and  divine  right,  are  not  recog- 
nized, but  endured,  and  that  merely  because  public  opinion 
sustains  them.  Of  these  facts  every  intelligent  Christian  is 
aware.  Is  there  between  them,  therefore,  any  cordial  com- 
munion at  the  Lord's  table  ?  None  whatever.  Of  this  fact 
no  additional  proof  is  requisite. 

In  reference  to  the  several  Protestant  denominations,  I 
believe  they  all  hold  that  manifest  corruption  in  doctrine  and 
worship  is  a  disqualification  for  the  reception  of  the  Lord's 
supper.  Let  that  fact  be  remembered,  and  then  how  shall 
we  answer  the  following  interrogations  ?  Do  not  Methodists 
habitually  and  bitterly  charge  both  these  upon  the  Presbyte- 
rians, on  the  score  of  their  Calvinism  ?  Are  the  Presbyterians 
less  ready  or  adroit  in  hurling  back  upon  the  Methodists  the 
same  imputations  on  the  score  of  their  Arminianism  ?  Each, 
too,  has  its  own  internal  war.  Old  School,  New  School, 
Cumberland,  Hopkinsian,  and  other  Presbyterians ;  and 
Episcopal,  Protestant,  Whitfield,  and  other  Methodists,  strive 
on  the  arena  of  ecclesiastical  combat.  Do  they  all  commune 
together  ?  If  they  do,  is  it  a  feast  of  union,  and  the  love  of 
each  other,  for  the  truth's  sake,  which  each  denies  is  held 
by  the  other  ?  If  so,  what  means  this  clangor  of  arms,  tiiis 
shaking  of  shields,  and  the  noise  of  their  fierce  combats 
which  I  hear  1  If  they  unite  in  love  at  the  Lord's  table, 
why  do  they  denounce  each  other  in  derision  immediately 
after,  in  the  Conference,  the  Session,  and  the  Pulpit?     Why 


BAPTISTS  MORE  FREE  THAN  PEDODAPTISTS.      231 

do  they  excommunicate  each  other  to  day,  "  snatch  from 
God's  hand  the  balance  and  the  rod,"  and  doom  their  com- 
petitors to  a  place  without  the  pale  of  Christian  fellowship, 
if  they  commune  to-morrow  with  these  very  men  who  are 
declared  at  the  s»me  time  to  be  out  of  their  communion? 
Let  me  never  imngle  a  want  of  sincerity,  consistency,  and 
candor  in  s&  solemn  an  act  of  divine  worship. 

For  iae  sake  of  brevity,  we  will  select  some  testimonies 
in  reference  to  the  point  before  us,  from  one  of  the  prevailing 
denominations,  Avhich  shall  serve  as  an  illustration  of  all  the 
others. 

Dr.  Engles,  the  editor  of  a  leading  journal  of  the  Presby- 
terian church,*  has  taken  the  ground  that  Old  School  Pres- 
byterians cannot  consistently  commune  vrith  New  School 
men  and  Methodists.  In  reply  to  some  resolutions  of  the 
West  Hanover  Presbytery,  Virginia,  formally  condemning 
this  doctrine,  the  editor  observes  :  "  As  Presbyterians  we 
profess  to  receive  our  denominational  distinction  from  the 
symbols  of  faith  which  we  adopt ;  and  we  regard  other  de- 
nominations as  having  their  distinctive  belief  and  character, 
of  which  we  judge  by  their  pubhc  symbols.  The  opinion 
that  Confessions  or  doctrinal  formularies  are  only  obligatory 
on  the  ministiy,  and  not  on  the  people  of  a  church,  is,  in  our 
judgment,  a  most  dangerous  one;  the  adoption  of  it  m.ust  at 
once  destroy  the  homogeneity  of  a  church,  and  give  full 
license  to  the  people  to  embrace  every  fonii  of  error.  On  the 
contrary,  it  is  presumed  that  a  Presbyterian  beUeves  in  Pres- 
byterian doctrine,  or  why  is  he  a  Presbyterian  ?  And  that 
a  Methodist  believes  in  the  doctrines  of  his  own  church,  or 
why  is  he  not  something  else  ?  The  Methodist  and  Pres- 
byterian alike  believe  that  they  have  very  good  reasons  for 
being  as  they  are  ;  nay,  so  potent  are  tliose  reasons  regarded 

*  Vide  Philad.  Presbyt.  Sept.  12th,  1S40. 


232  PRESBYTERIANS  AND  METHODISTS. 

to  be,  tli^t  neither  imagines  he  could  ever  be  induced  to 
change  his  position.  Now  all  we  have  conU^nded  for  is 
consistency  in  carrying  this  principle  out  into  practice." 

"As  our  Methodist  brethren  ***  have  taken  umbrage  at 
our  language,  let  us  ask  them  if  they  are  prepared  to  advise 
their  people,  on  all  favorable  occasions,  to  go  and  commune 
with  the  Presbyterians  ?  Do  they  wish  them  to  think  there 
is  no  difference  between  the  denominations  ?  Do  they  regard 
the  differences  as  so  trivial  as  to'  invite  entire  obhvion  of 
them  by  their  flocks,  when  they  stray  into  Presbyterian  folds  ? 
We  judge  not.  Why,  then,  should  they  be  angry  with  us 
for  following  their  example  ?  Holding  the  faith  we  do,  *** 
can  we,  or  ought  we  to  say  to  the  sheep  of  our  folds — Yon- 
der are  pastures  in  which  we  believe  there  are  poisonous 
weeds  growing,  but  still  there  can  be  little  danger  in  feeding 
occasionally  there  ?  In  this  matter  we  have  never  found 
our  Methodist  brethren  a  particle  more  hberal  than  ourselves. 
We  have  never  found  them  backward  in  decrying  Presbyte- 
rian doctrine  ;  and  we,  on  the  other  hand,  candidly  tell  them, 
as  we  have  often  told  them  before,  that  we  consider  their 
system  as  very  erroneous.  For  each  of  us  thus  to  think  is  our 
right,  in  the  exercise  of  Christian  liberty,  but  is  it  quite  pos- 
sible that  we  should  forget  this,  and  lay  aside  our  strong 
feelings  on  the  subject,  while  we  commune  together?" 

Thus  much  Dr.  Engles  says  in  regard  to  our  Methodist 
brethren.  Respecting  the  Old  School  particularly,  and  the 
New  School  department  of  his  church  especially,  he  re- 
marks : 

"  The  West  Hanover  resolutions  express  as  much  solici- 
tude to  be  on  good  terms  with  the  New  School  as  with  the 
Methodists.  If  we  understand  them,  they  wish  the  whole 
world  to  know  that  they  distincdy  disavow  the  exclusiveness 
which  would  refuse  to  commune  with  the  men  whom  they, 


NEW  AND  OLD  SCHOOL  PRESBYTERLANS.  233 

as  Presbyterians,  helped  out  of  the  church.  If  vre  mistalce 
not  they  took  an  honorable  part  in  the  exchisive  measures  by 
which  the  New  School  lost  their  statues  in  our  church ;  we 
say,  their  statues  in  our  church,  for  although  the  exclusion 
in  question  did  not  affect  their  ecclesiastical  organization,  all 
the  world  knows  that  the  excluded  party  are  not  now,  and 
never  have  been  since  the  passage  of  the  acts,  in  the  com- 
munion of  the  Presbyterian  church.  When,  therefore,  tliis 
Presbytery  publicly  says  that  they  wish,  with  all  '  liberality 
and  Christian  courtesy,'  to  hold  coinmunion  with  them, 
what  must  they  think  ?  If  such  language  does  not  sound 
hke  a  bitter  mockery  in  their  ears,  we  are  not  well  skilled  in 
sounds.  The  measure  by  which  the  New  School  were  ex- 
cluded from  the  communion  of  the  Presbyterian  church  was 
either  righteous  or  unrighteous  ;  if  the  former,  why  should 
we  make  any  professions  of  attachment  which  our  actions 
do  not  sustain,  or  if  the  latter,  why  do  we  not  magnanimously 
avow  it,  and  invite  them  back  in  a  body  ?  We  believe  it 
was  righteous,  and  whether  right  or  wrong  in  our  belief,  we 
contend  that,  w^hile  the  causes  exist  Avhich  led  to  it,  it  is 
utterly  inexpedient  to  hold  communion  luith  those 
churches.''^ 

Another  leading  journal — The  Phila.  Christian  Observer 
— under  the  influence  of  the  New  School,  referring  to  the 
same  transactions,  remarks  : — "  Palpably  inconsistent  as  is 
his — Dr.  Engles' — argument  with  his  denial  of  this  'pre- 
mise,^ and  with  his  professions  of  regard  for  other  Christians 
than  his  own  party,  the  inconsistency  of  the  West  Hanover 
brethren  (in  resolving  to  commune  with  other  denominations 
with  *  liberality  and  Christian  courtesy')  is  still  more  glar- 
ingly palpable.  For  they  not  only  helped  their  brethren  out 
of  their  New  Basis  concern,  but  after  they  were  out  they 
would  not  recognize  them  as  a  church.  They  would  not, 
20^ 


2'M  NHNV  AND  01,D  SCHOOL  PRESBYTERIANS. 

in  ihc  fall  of  1838,  ^vc  Dr.  Cnrroll  a  crrtifioate  of  dismis- 
sion, rcco<rnizMi<r  in  any  form  llic  lliird  Presbytery  of  Pliila- 
dclphia  as  any  part  of  the  church  of  Christ,  or  as  having 
any  connection  with  it.  Tliey  would  not  even  give  him 
such  a  dismission  as  it  has  been  usual  to  give  one  going 
from  the  Presbyterian  church  to  other  denominations.  *  •  ♦  » 
But  now,  forsooth,  without  a  solitary  expression  of  sorrow 
for  tlic  wrong  and  insult,  they  have  become  so  loving  that 
they  would  have  the  members  of  their  church  commune  with 
semi  Pelagians." 

Tlie  Protestant  and  Herald,  of  Kentucky,  referring  to  the 
writers  named,  and  to  expositions  of  Dr.  Pluinmcr  of  Vir- 
ginia, resolves  the  whole,  involuntarily  no  doubt,  by  assuming 
precisely  the  Baptist  ground.  His  language  is: — "Every 
believer  in  Christ,  who  has  been  baptized  in  the  name  of  the 
Holy  Trinity,  and  is  in  connection  with  an  evangelic  church, 
has  complied  with  all  the  scripture  requisitions  in  order  to 
an  approach  to  the  Lord's  table  ;  and  we  dare  not  keep  him 
back." 

On  a  mature  examination  of  all  these  facts,  and  much  more 
to  the  same  effect,  may  we  not  ask  the  question  whether 
Baptists  have  not  all  the  liberality  which  any  of  these  writers 
or  churches  evince,  with  the  advantage  in  addition  of  open 
sincerity,  and  unshrinking  candor  ?  But  to  make  this  matter 
still  more  plain,  we  will  extend  somewhat  further  our  inves- 
tigations. 

A  distinguished  Pedobaplist  writer  in  a  neighboring  state,* 
expresses  himself  in  the  following  language  : — "  For  the  last 
twenty  years  or  more,  I  do  not  recollect  of  having  entertained 
a  doubt  that  tlic  opening  of  the  doors  of  our  communion  to 
all  of  what  are  denominated  evangelical  cburches  is  errone- 
ous, that  it  will  either  be  changed,  or  lead  to  errors  of  a  still 

•  Vide  ProlcsUul  and  Herald,  Jan.  12lli,  IS  10. 


CLOSE  COMMUNION  PRESBYTERIANS.  235 

more  serious  nature,  containing  in  itself  essentially  an  indif- 
ference to  sound  religious  principle  and  practice,  though  slow- 
in  its  development.  On  a  subject  of  such  extent  I  can  say 
but  litde  in  a  short  communication,  and  even  this,  I  have  rea- 
son to  apprehend,  may,  by  many  in  the  present  state  of  feel- 
ing in  the  church,  be  considered  quite  inexpedient^ 

"  I  object  to  the  practice  in  the  first  place,  because  /  have 
never  yet  seen  the  man,  however  strenuously  he  might 
advocate  it,  avIio  could  inform  me  how  far  it  was  right, 
AND  DUTY  CALLED  to  cxtend  the  privilege — a  very  impor- 
tant item  in  making  out  a  line  of  conduct,  and  without  which 
it  must  be  unsafe,  in  matters  of  conscience,  to  act  at  all.  We 
are  told,  it  is  true,  that  all  who  are  evangelical,  or  who  hold 
the  essentials  of  religion,  are  to  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's 
table ;  but  then  these  essentials  are  undefined ;  some  make 
them  but  two  or  three,  at  most,  others,  perhaps,  four  or  five, 
and  others  still  more.     *     *     * 

"  I  object  to  the  practice,  in  the  second  place,  because  it 
clearly  implies  that  our  church  creeds  or  confessions  contain 
certain  items  of  faith  and  practice  the  belief  of  which,  or 
CONFORMITY  TO  WHICH,  IS  uot  Tiecessary  to  the  right  of 
church  privileges.  This  implies  either  that  these  things  are 
not  based  on  divine  authority,  on  which  supposition  they  are 
the  works  of  men,  they  are  schismatical  too,  dividing  the 
church  where  there  is  no  conscientious  principle  involved, 
and,  therefore,  ought  to  be  rejected  as  evils ;  or  it  implies 
that,  notwithstanding  they  are  based  on  divine  authority,  they 
are  indifferent — of  little  importance,  may  be  practised  or  not 
as  Ave  may  see  proper,  with  impunity — which  last  conclusion 
is  to  me  revolting.  *  *  *  I  suppose  a  case  wliich  I  tliink  is 
in  point.  An  individual  applies  to  you  for  admission  to  l)ap- 
tism  and  the  Lord's  supper.  After  examining  him  to  full 
satisfaction  as  to  his  experimental  religion,  you  inquire  of 


336  CLOSE  COMMUNION  PRESBYTERIANS. 

him  whether  he  will  conform  to  the  order  of  God's  house,  in 
submitting  to  discipline,  the  discharge  of  religious  duty,  such 
as  family  discipline,  the  Baptism  of  his  children,  &c.  But 
he  replies,  I  do  not  approve  of  this  government,  and  as  to  the 
baptism  of  children,  I  consider  it  unauthorized.  You  would 
reply,  I  presume,  that  you  make  subjection  to  this  duty  a 
condition  of  church  membership,  and  of  privileges  connected 
"with  it.  But  on  the  supposition  you  practise  open  commu- 
nion, he  would  reply — You  admit  to  all  the  privileges  1  de- 
sire without  such  subjection,  for  you  admit  Baptists,  and 
those  who  neither  believe  nor  practise  it.  You  reply — Be- 
cause they  submit  to  their  own  order.  He  takes  his  depar- 
ture, connects  himself  with  those  who  will  not  require  this 
thing,  and  returns,  and,  at  your  invitation,  enjoys  with  you 
all  he  asked.  I  see,  in  such  a  case,  a  predicament  I  should 
not  envy.  For  what  is  your  attitude  now  in  the  eyes  of 
your  own  members  ?  Most  assuredly  you  appear  inconsist- 
ent, and  they  must  feel  in  consequence  that  they  lie  under  a 
condition,  their  compliance  with  which  guarantees  them  no 
privileges.  You  lay  every  distinguishing  feature  of  your 
own  church  liable  to  prejudice  and  reproach.  To  me  the 
inference  would  be,  your  conduct  being  right,  that  your  church 
ought  forthwith  to  relinquish  its  own  distinctiveness,  and 
sink  into  the  church  Catholic,  and  every  other  church  prac- 
tisinof  the  same  ouffht  to  do  likewise." 

"  I  am  fully  aware  that  my  views  on  this  subject  are 
esteemed  very  illiberal.  This  is  the  argumentum  ad  in- 
vidiam, which  with  many  weighs  heavier  than  a  thousand 
others.     I  have,  however,  always  been  happy  to  consider 

them    LIBERAL    TO    TRUTH,  AND    SINCERITY  IN    THE    TRUTH. 

But  the  state  of  the  case  is  misapprehended,  the  principle  on 
the  ground  of  consistency  and  sincerity  in  the  truth,  applies 
equally  to  all  sects,  who  must,  in  charity,  be  supposed  con 


CLOSE  COMMUNION  PKESBYTERIANS.  237 

scientiously  attached  to  their  own  pecuharities,  for  where  tliis 
is  the  case,  they  must  needs  do  violence  to  their  consciences 
where  tliey  dispense  with  such  pecuharities.  And  I  would 
here  add  that  the  practice  is  absolutely  inconsistent,  in  my 
opinion,  with  the  very  idea  of  fellowship,  which  in  all  cases 
UBplies  a  community  of  responsibility." 

We  perceive,  from  these  extracts,  not  only  that  our  Pedo- 
baptist  brethren  are  close  communionists  as  well  as  ourselves, 
but  that  some  of  them,  at  least,  carry  their  restrictions  much 
farther  than  we  do.  They  not  only  require  that  a  man  sliall 
have  given  them  satisfactory  evidences  of  his  spiritual  change, 
and  been  baptized,  but  he  must  subscribe  their  particular 
Confession  of  Faith,  and  assume  with  them  "  a,  com.munity 
of  responsibility."  They  would  not  permit  Baptists  to 
approach  their  table.  Believing  these  doctrines,  and  failing 
to  avow  them,  while  at  die  same  time,  from  a  fear  of  invidi- 
ous imputation,  and  a  desire  to  obtain  popularity,  by  their 
hberal  professions,  they  pretend  to  practise/ree  communion, 
this  writer  charges  his  brethren,  in  the  aggregate,  with  a 
want  of  ^^  liberality  to  truth,  and  sincerity  in  the  trufh.'^ 
I  shall  not  question  the  correctness,  nor  vouch  for  the  legiti- 
macy of  his  conclusions,  but  proceed  to  ascertain  by  what 
means  they  manage  to  keep  up  a  public  impression  that  their 
communion  is  free  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  that  term,  and 
yet  practise  close  communion.  I  have  at  hand  some  Sy- 
nodical  proceedings  held  in  one  of  the  Valley  states  which 
will  enable  us  widiout  difficulty  to  solve  the  problem.* 

llie  Committee  on  Bills  and  Overtures,  to  whom  Avaa 
referred  tlie  question — "  Is  it  proper  that  there  should  be 

*  Synodical  Records  of  a  Presbyterian  Synod — Extracts  published  by 
order,  &c. — Vide  Union  Evangelist,  and  Presbyterian  Advocate,  1820, 
vol.  li.  pp.  96-93. 


238 


SYNODICAL  PROCEEDINGS. 


intercommunication  between  Presbyterians  and  those  deno- 
minations who  hold  Arminian  sentiments  ?"  presented  the 
foUowing  report,  which  was  adopted  : — 

"  That  after  giving  it  all  the  attention  which  the  importance 
of  the  subject  demands,  they  are  of  the  opinion  that  for  Pres- 
byterians to  hold  communion  in  sealing  ordinances  with  those 
who  deny  the  doctrines  of  grace,  through  tlie  blood  of  Christ, 
&c.,  is  highly  prejudicial  to  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus.  Nor 
can  such  intercommunion  answer  any  valuable  purpose  to 
those  who  practise  it,  as  two  cannot  walk  together  unless 
they  are  agreed.  Yet,  as  there  are  persons  who  have  received 
distorted  views  of  the  doctrines  of  grace,  who  notwithstand- 
ing admit  these  doctrines  in  fact,  although  they  are  prejudiced 
against  the  terms  generally  used  in  the  discussion  of  these 
subjects,  your  committee  are  of  the  opinion  that,  if  any  such 
manifest  a  desire  to  hold  communion  with  us,  that,  after  being 
conversed  with,  and  having  received  satisfaction  on  these  and 
otber  points  on  which  their  church  and  ours  disagree,  and 
having  obtained  satisfactory  evidence  of  their  piety,  charity 
requires  they  should  be  admitted  to  occasional  intercom- 
munion." 

Communion  is  not  to  be  withheld,  certainly  not,  this  would 
be  illiberal  sectarian  bigotry.  Should  any  manifest  a  desire 
they  are  to  be  received,  if  they  believe  in  the  doctrines  of 
grace;  if,  when  examined— for  they  must  first  be  exam- 
ined— they  shall  convince  their  inquisitors  that  they  have 
renounced  their  own,  and  embraced  Presbyterian  doctrine  ; 
and  IF  they  shall  give  satisfactory  evidences  of  their  piety; 
then  they  sliould  be  admitted  ;  not  to  habitual,  but  "  to  oc- 
casional intercommunion."  This  is  one  specimen  of  Pedo- 
baptist  open  connnunion,  as  regulated,  not  by  the  false  glare 
of  pulpit  declamation,  but  by  the  sober  deliberations  of  sy- 


SYNOD! DAT,  rROCF.F.OINO??,  239 

nodical  gravity.     As  a  fiirtlier  illustration  of  our  inquiry  we 
will  introduce  another  similar  proceeding.* 

*'  The  committee  on  a  former  resolution  of  Synod  on  the 
sul-iject  of  intercommunion  reported.  The  report  was  adopted, 
and  is  as  follows,  viz  :— 

"  The  committee  are  of  opinion  that  for  Presbyterians  to 
hold  communion  in  sealing  ordinances  "with  those  who  belong 
to  churches  holding  doctrines  contrary  to  our  standards,  is 
incompatible  with  the  purity  and  peace  of  the  church,  and 
highly  prejudicial  to  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus.  Nor  can 
such  communions  answer  any  valuable  purpose,  &c.  In 
accordance  with  these  views,  your  committee  are  of  opinion 
that  the  practice  of  inviting  to  the  communion  all  who  are 
in  good  standing  in  their  own  churches,  is  calculated  to  do 
much  evil,  and  should  not  be  continued,  while  every  church 
session  is,  however,  left  at  liberty  to  admit  to  occasional  com- 
munion members  of  other  denominations,  after  having  con- 
versed with  them,  and  received  satisfaction  of  tlieir  soundness 
in  the  faith,  and  Christian  practice." 

Here  again  we  have  presented  the  same  general  views  of 
the  subject.  To  avow  candidly  close  communion  is  not 
*'  expedient."  It  would  give  effect  to  the  argumentum  ad 
invidiam.  Outward  appearances  must  be  maintained.  In 
deep  conclave,  however,  it  is  solemnly  enacted  that  indis- 
criminate communion,  the  practice  of  inviting  Christians — 
yes  undoubted  Christians,  baptized  Christians — who  are  in 
good  standing  in  their  own  churches,  is  an  evil.  Commu- 
nion with  even  such  as  these,  unless  they  subscribe  the 
standards,  "  is  incompatible  with  the  peace  and  purity  of  the 
church,  and  highly  prejudicial  to  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus." 

*  Extracts  from  Synodical  Records,  1832,  ut  s-ipra,  vol.  iii.  p.  240. 


240  GF.NrRAT,  A?!Sr,MnLY. 

Yet  they  are  open  communionists  !  If  any  of  us  should  be 
so  unfortunate  as  to  wish  to  commune  with  them,  what  must 
we  do  to  accomplish  our  desires  ?  We  must  apply  to  the 
church  session,  converse  with  the  savan«,  convince  them  that 
according  to  their  standards,  we  are  sound  in  the  faith  and 
Christian  practice — Presbyterian  faith  and  practice  of  course 
— and  if  they  are  satisfied,  and  we  can  succeed  in  getting  "  a 
token,'^  then,  and  in  that  case,  "  Synod"  is  kind  enough  to 
say  we  may  approach  the  holy  table.  We  may,  also,  occa- 
sionally, repeat  our  visits  afterwards,  if  we  will,  whenever 
we  wish  to  do  so,  repeat  the  same  process  !  And  these  are 
liberal,  free  communion  Christians,  the  very  men  who  de- 
nounce Baptists  as  bigoted,  selfish,  exclusive,  close  commu- 
nionists ! 

These  documents  would  perhaps  be  repudiated  by  many 
of  the  sect,  especially  in  public,  for  effect,  and  this  very  fact, 
while  it  proves  their  own  disunion,  if  sincere,  serves  as  a  full 
and  satisfactory  illusti-ation  of  our  present  inquiry. 

The  synodical  doctrines  just  noticed  are  fully  sustained  by 
the  highest  tribunal  of  that  denomination.  The  General  As- 
sembly of  1839  expressly  says:  "  Every  Christian  church, 
or  association  of  churches,  is  entitled  to  declare  the  terms  of 
admission  into  its  communion."  The  unanimous  doctrine* 
of  their  leading  divines,  is,  that  these  terms  consist  in  "  agree- 
ment in  essentials.^^  If  this  be  regarded  as  too  indefinite, 
and  it  is  still  necessary  to  inquire  what  they  mean  by  "  essen- 
tials,^^ tlie  reports  just  considered  afford  a  definite  reply. 

The  views  of  this  denomination  we  have  presented  as  an 
example  of  all  the  others,  and  that  it  is  both  a  fair  and  favorable 
one  will  not  be  questioned,  because  no  man  can  doubt  but 
tliat  the  Presbyterian  church  is  as  enlightened,  liberal,  and 
candid  as  either  the  Methodist  or  Episcopalian.     I  am  now 

*  Vide  Prot.  and  Herald. 


INFANT    MEMBERSHIP.  241 

ready  to  submit  tlie  question  to  the  decision  of  any  impartial 
tribunal,  whetlier  Baptists  are  not  to  the  fullest  extent  as  free 
and  liberal  in  their  communion  as  any  class  of  Pedobaptists 
wliatever.  Indeed,  the  testimony  I  have  presented  will  evince 
that  we  are  much  more  so.  To  establish  incontrovertibly 
this  latter  proposition,  I  shall  ofler  one  more  argument. 

Baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper  having  been  associated  by 
Christ  himself,  remained  inseparable  from  the  days  of  the 
apostles  onward,  for  more  than  a  tliousand  years.  When- 
ever, in  the  Scriptures,  or  in  the  history  of  the  ancient 
church,  one  of  these  ordinances  appears,  the  other  is  inva- 
riably found  in  connection  with  it.  With  Baptists  this  sacred 
union  is  still  inviolably  preserved.  We  most  cheerfully  sit 
down  at  the  table  of  the  Lord  with  all  those,  if  they  have  not 
forfeited  their  claims  by  heresy  or  immorality,  whom  we  be- 
lieve to  be  baptized.  Do  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  act  with 
the  same  liberality  ?  "Very  far  from  it.  Their  public  pro- 
fessions would  lead  us  to  conclude  that  this  is  their  practice, 
but  when  brought  to  the  point  they  positively  refuse !  Is 
proof  of  this  statement  needed  ?  I  ask,  then,  do  they  not  be- 
heve  their  infants  are  baptized?  Most  certainly.  Are  they 
eiiher  heretical  or  immoral  ?  Neither  is  pretended.  Do  they 
commune  with  them?  No,  never.  Thus  they  at  once  ex- 
clude two-thirds  of  the  members  of  their  own  churches  from 
the  Lord's  table  !  But  is  it  a  fact  that  their  baptized  children 
are  members  of  their  churches  ?  Turn  once  more  to  the 
Confession  of  Faith,*  and  it  will  be  found  thus  written :  "A 
particular  Church  consists  of  a  number  of  professing  Chris- 
tians, with  their  offspring,  voluntarily  associated  together 
for  divine  worship  and  godly  living."  Againt — "  Children 
born  vjithin  the  pale  of  the  visible  clwrch,  and  dedicated  to 
God  in  baptism,  are  under  the  inspection  and  government  of 

*  P.  273.  t  P.  327. 

21 


242  PEDOBABTISTS  EXCLUDE  THEIR 

the  church — and  when  they  come  to  years  of  discreiion,  if 
they  be  free  from  scandal,  sober,  and  steady,  and  have  suffi- 
cient knowledge  to  discern  the  Lord's  body,  they  ought  to  be 
informed  it  is  their  duty  and  privilege  to  come  to  the  Lord's 
supper."  In  the  Larger  Catechism  we  find  the  following  : 
"  Question  62.  What  is  the  visible  church  ?  Answer. 
The  visible  church  is  a  society  made  up  of  all  such  as,  in  all 
ages  and  places  of  the  Avorld,  do  profess  the  true  religion, 
(ind  their  children,''  Porter  on  Christian  Baptism,  says  : 
^'Baptized  children  are  members  of  the  visible  clmrch.'^* 
Dr.  Dwight,  in  his  Theology,  as  every  one  knows,  maintains 
tliat  children  are  members  of"  the  general  church." 

Dr.  Miller,  on  this  subject,  and  the  same  views  are  main- 
tained by  both  Methodists  and  Episcopalians  in  their  re- 
spective formularies,  distincdy  remarks  : — t 

"  Is  there  no  advantage  in  solemnly  dedicaUng  our  chil- 
dren to  God  by  an  appropriate  rite  of  his  own  appointment  "^ 
Is  there  no  advantage  in  formally  binding  ourselves,  by  cove- 
nant engagements,  to  bring  up  our  chiklren  'in  the  nurture 
and  admonition  of  the  Lord  V  Is  there  no  advantage  in  pub- 
licly ratifying  the  connection  of  our  children,  as  well  as 
ourselves,  ivith  the  visible  church,  and,  as  it  were,  binding 
them  to  an  alliance  with  the  God  of  their  fathers  ?  Is  it  a 
step  of  no  value  to  our  children  themselves  to  be  brought, 
by  a  divinely  appointed  ordinance,  into  the  boso?n,  and  to 
the  notice,  the  maternal  attentions,  and  the  prayers  of  the 
church,  the  mother  of  us  all?" — Wlien  our  brethren  are  dis- 
posed to  be  particularly  severe,  they  are  wont  to  say  that — 
"  There  are  but  two  places  in  the  universe  where  there  are  no 
children,  one  is  the  bottomless  pit,  and  the  other  is  the  Bap- 
tist Church."  Not  to  reply  to  them,  that  there  is  one  other 
place  where  there  are  no  infants — that  is,  the  Pedobaptist 

*  P.  lOS.  t  On  Iiinuit  BiiDtii^m,  39-4:2. 


OWN  MEMBERS  FUOM  COMMUNION.  243 

communion  table — I  ask,  does  not  tlieir  argument  imply  that, 
in  their  opinion,  infants  are  members  of  their  churches  ?  It 
is  then  universally  conceded ;  and  it  is  probable  that  this 
class  make  up  two-tliirds  of  their  whole  number,  with  none 
of  whom  will  they  sit  down  to  the  communion. 

Tlieir  fathers  did  not,  as  we  have  seen  in  a  former  chap- 
ter, act  thus  inconsistendy.  Infant  baptism  was  originated 
in  the  third  century.  From  tliat  time  onward,  during  more 
than  eight  hundred  years,  they  scrupulously  took  all  their 
baptized  children  with  them  to  the  Lord's  table,  rightly  judg- 
ing that  they  had  the  same  title  to  the  one  that  they  had  to 
the  other  of  these  ordinances.  They  declared  that  they 
administered  them  both  to  their  infants  upon  the  authoi'ity 
of  tradition  from  the  apostles.  When  they  discontinued, 
in  obedience  to  a  decree  from  the  Council  of  Trent,  the 
administration  to  them  of  the  eucharist,  it  was  because  of 
their  superstitious  notions  regarding  transubstantiation,  with 
whicli  it  is  hoped  Protestants  are  nof  infected.  The  stand- 
ards of  all  their  sects,  as  we  have  seen,  teach  that  between 
the  Lord's  supper,  as  well  as  baptism,  and  the  salvation  of 
the  soul,  there  is  an  intimate  and  necessary  connection. 
Yet  they  totally  withhold  from  them  all  this  essential,  this 
"  effectual"  means  and  seal  of  grace.  "  When  Pedobaptists," 
says  Hinton,  "give  their  children  both  ordinances,  they 
will  be  consistent ;  but  while  they  withhold  the  Lord's  sup- 
per from  their  children,  let  them  not  complain  of  others  with- 
holding baptism.  Whatever  arguments  will  sustain  the  one, 
v/ill  be  equally  available  for  the  other."  But  they  profess 
to  believe  them  truly  baptized,  yet  refuse  to  them  the  commu- 
nion, thus  practically  excommunicating  them  all,  a  favored 
few  only  of  the  great  mass  of  their  own  members  being  per- 
mitted to  approach  the  sacred  table.  Of  ours  we  receive  all. 
None  are  debarred.     Ours,  therefore,  is  by  far  the  most  free 


244  BAPTISTS  MORE  FREE  THAN  PEDOBAPTISTS. 

and  liberal  communion  of  any  denomination  existing.  Still 
these  wholesale  restrictionists,  who  have  infinite  reason  to  be 
silent  on  the  subject,  are  perpetually  decrying  us  for  our 
resti'icted  communion  !  Before  they  ever  administer  to  us 
another  word  of  reproof,  they,  in  all  good  conscience,  by 
communing  with  all  their  own  members,  should  evince  that 
they  themselves  possess  some  portion  of  that  liberality  they 
so  much  eulogize,  and  for  the  supposed  want  of  which  we 
appear  to  them  so  very  obnoxious. 

Let  all  the  facts  now  submitted  be  maturely  weighed,  and 
we  shall  never  again  be  told  that  Baptists  are  the  only  close 
communionists,  and  more  exclusive  and  illiberal  than  any 
other  Christians,  the  only  people  who  exclude  the  members 
of  Christ,  the  children  of  God,  from  the  holy  table.  Wlio 
now  can  doubt  that  the  Baptists  are,  to  say  the  least,  as 
liberal  in  all  things  as  any  other  Christians,  and  that  in  rela- 
tion to  communion  particularly  v/e  are  more  open  and  liberal 
than  any  class  of  Pedobaptists  whatever. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

CAN  THE  BAPTIST    CHURCH,  IN    MAINTAINING  CLOSE  COMMU- 
NION, BE   JUSTLY    CHARGED  WITH  THE  SIN  OF  SCHISM  ? 

That  schism  exists  somewhere  is  evident — We  have  not  produced  it, 
and  are  therefore  not  responsible — We  have  adhered  to  original  prin- 
ciples— Baptists  are  identical  with  primitive  Christians — When  the 
disciples  became  Fedobaptists  they  severed  themselves  from  us — We 
have  maintained  ever  since  a  separate  existence  on  original  ground 
not  connected  with  Papists  or  Protestants — Historical  proofs — Con- 
fessions of  Faith — Our  name — Duty  of  Pedobaptists,  having  produced 
the  schism,  is  obvious — they  are  required  to  heal  it — It  is  not  difScult 
to  determine  how  it  may  be  done — Its  consequences. 

Among  the  numerous  charges  preferred  against  us,  not  the 
least  important  is  that,  in  maintaining  the  principles,  and  fol- 
lowing out  the  practice,  based  upon  them,  of  strict  communion, 
we  are  guilty  of  severing  the  body  of  Christ,  and  thus  pro- 
ducing agitation  and  schism.  Pedobaptists  have  not  been  the 
most  zealous  in  their  denunciations  on  this  head.  I  will 
note  a  few  passages  from  a  distinguished  author  in  our  own 
ranks. 

"  Are  our  Pedobaptist  brethren,"  asks  Mr.  Hall — "  a  part 
of  the  mystical  body  of  Christ  ?  Or,  in  other  words,  do  they 
form  a  part  of  that  church  which  he  purchased  by  his  precious 
blood  ?  You  are  loud  in  your  professions  of  esteem  for 
pious  Pedobaptists,  nor  is  there  any  thing  you  would  more 
resent  than  a  doubt  of  your  sincerity  in  this  particular.  The 
persons  whom  you  exclude  from  your  communion  are,  then, 
by  your  own  confession  a  part  of  the  flock  of  Christ,  a  por- 
tion of  his  mystical  body,  and  of  that  church  which  he  has 
bought  witli  his  blood.  The  next  question  is,  whether  a  for- 
21*  245 


246  BAPTISTS  IN  STRICT  COMMUxNION 

mal  separation  from  them,  on  the  account  of  their  imputed 
eiror,  amounts  to  what  the  scripture  styles  schism?  Sup- 
posing one  part  of  the  church  at  Corinth  had  formally  severed 
tiiemselves  from  the  other,  and  established  a  separate  commu- 
nion, allowing  those  whom  they  had  forsalvcn,  at  the  same 
lime,  the  title  of  sincere  Christians,  would  this  have  been 
considered  as  a  schism?  That  it  would  is  demonstrable 
from  the  lanmiaore  of  St.  Paul,  who  accuses  the  Corinthians 
of  having  schism — ct;^^^^**^*?  (divisions) — among  them,  though 
they  never  dreamed  of  forming  a  distinct  and  separate  com- 
munion. If  they  are  charged  with  schism  on  account  of  that 
spirit  of  contention,  and  that  alienation  of  their  affections  from 
each  other  which  merely  tended  to  an  open  nipture,  how 
much  more  would  they  have  incurred  that  censure,  had  they 
actually  proceeded  to  that  extremity— If  diere  is  any  mean- 
ing in  terms  this  is  schism  in  its  highest  sense."* 

In  another  placet  he  observes — *'  Still  you  plead  for  a 
visible  disunion,  nor  will  it  avail  you  to  reply,  that  you  cul- 
tivate a  fraternal  affection  towards  Christians  of  other  denomi- 
nations, while  you  insist  upon  such  a  visible  separation  as 
must  make  it  apparent  to  the  world  that  they  are  not  one." 

That  a  schism  exists  in  the  Christian  church,  and  that  the 
crime  of  its  production  is  referable  either  to  Baptists  or  Pe- 
dobaptists,  is  most  true.  Mr.  Hall  insists,  and  the  Pedobap- 
tist  world  concur  of  course  with  him,  that  the  sin  is  ours. 
The  opposite  I  believe  to  be  capable  of  the  most  satisfactory 
demonstration.  If  upon  examination  it  is  found  that  their 
churches  are  constituted  and  governed  upon  the  Gospel  model, 
and  ours  is  not,  then  we  are  the  schismatics  ;  but  if  the  con- 
trary is  true  we  cannot  be  liable  to  the  charge  of  dividing  the 
body  of  Christ.  Suppose  the  church  at  Corinth  had  proceed- 
ed to  an  open  rupture,  who  would  have  sustained  the  odium 

*  Works  vol.  i.  p.  293.  +  P.  225. 


NOT  CHARGEABLE  WITH  SCHISM.  247 

and  sill  of  the  division  ?  Would  it  have  \c.en  the  party  who 
observed,  or  the  party  wlio  abandoned  the  regulations  pre- 
scribed by  the  great  Legislator  ?  It  is  not  gratefid  to  my 
feelings  to  fix  the  charge  of  schism,  even  by  implication,  on 
any  one.  But  the  question  is  made,  and  we  are  forced  either 
to  suffer  the  reproach  or  place  it  where  it  tridy  belongs. 
Close  communion  did  not  originate  with  the  Baptists.  It 
was  brought  into  existence  by  Pedobaptists,  and  is  still  con- 
thiued  by  them,  and  that  too  against  our  most  earnest  and 
protracted  remonstrances.  If  I  establish  this  proposition, 
and  show  that  the  ban'ier  to  universal  Christian  intercourse 
at  the  Lord's  table  was  set  up,  and  is  still  kept  up  by  Pedo- 
baptists, it  will  be  readily  acknowledged,  by  every  candid 
man,  that  the  crime  of  producing  and  perpetuating  the  schism, 
and  all  the  odium  and  responsibihty  involved  belongs  exclu- 
sively to  Pedobaptists. 

The  terms  of  communion,  as  we  have  fully  seen,  are  first, 
repentance,  secondly,  faith,  and  thirdly,  baptism.  And  when 
once  the  holy  table  is  thus  approached  by  any  one,  he  must 
continue  to  have  free  access,  so  long  as  he  remains  orthodox, 
and  orderly.  We  have  before  proved  that  infant  baptism  is 
clearly  unlawful,  and  prohibited  by  the  word  of  God.  Who 
foisted  it  into  the  church?  Its  friends  and  advocates  of 
course;  and  they  did  it,  and  persevere  in  the  practice, 
against  the  warm  and  continued  protestations  of  the  adherents 
to  primitive  truth,  from  Tertullian  down  to  the  present  time. 
Thus  they  effected  one  part  of  the  schism,  and  sundered  the 
body  of  Christ  so  far  as  it  could  be  done  by  setting  up  that 
part  of  the  barrier  which  dispenses  with  repentance  and  faith 
as  a  condition  of  baptism.  It  only  remained  after  this  for 
them  to  abrogate  baptism  also.  This  they  ultimately  did  by 
adopting  sprmldingor  pouring,  which  is  in  reality  to  dispense 
with  baptism  altogether.     Then  the  gulf  between  them  and 


248  BAPTISTS  NOT  SCHISMATICS. 

US  was  completely  fixed.  Nothing  more  was  required. 
Thus  they  abolished  all  the  scriptural  terms  of  communion, 
refusing  to  comply  with  any  of  them,  and  still  they  insist 
that  notwithstanding  we  shall  either  receive  them  to  comnui- 
nion,  or  else  deny  them  to  be  Christians.  We  refuse  to  do 
either.  They  then,  by  way  of  reprisal,  attempt  to  fix  upon 
U8  the  sin  of  their  own  schism.  But  this  cannot  be  done. 
Those  who  made  the  division  must  be  convicted  as  the  schis- 
matics. We  stand  in  this  matter  precisely  where  the  apos- 
tles did.  We  have  not  made,  we  do  not  intend  to  make,  tlie 
slightest  alteration  in  any  thing.  They  have  made  the  change, 
and  thus  set  up  the  barriers  to  communion.  They,  therefore, 
and  they  alone,  are  responsible,  be  they  what  they  may,  for 
the  consequences.  When,  therefore,  our  Pedobapdst  breth- 
ren prove  that  the  crimes  alleged  are  involved  in  close  com- 
munion, and,  as  is  often  the  case,  grow  Avarm  and  eloquently 
indignant  in  their  declamations  on  the  subject,  they  do  but 
publish  their  own  guilt,  and  grace  with  the  charms  of  rhetoric 
the  sentence  of  their  own  condemnation. 

I  have  frequently  in  the  preceding  chapter  spoken  of  the 
church  now  called  Baptist,  as  having  existed  in  all  ages  since 
the  days  of  the  apostles.  I  am  aware  that  there  are  many 
who  will  regard  these  claims  as  preposterous.  In  maintain- 
ing the  proposition  that  we  remain  unchanged  and  upon  the 
true  Gospel  foundation,  with  reference  to  the  subjects  involv- 
ed in  the  present  controversy,  I  shall  have  occasion  to  illus- 
trate this  truth.  I  assert  that  the  Baptist  church  has  existed, 
in  a  state  of  comparative  purity,  connected  with  neither  Papists 
nor  Protestants,  in  every  period  since  Christ,  and  that  in 
this  sense  God  has  not  left  himself  without  witness.  Before 
I  proceed  to  the  proof  of  this  statement  I  \vill  make  a  rem.ark 
on  two  collateral  topics. 

The  former  has  reference  to  apostolical  succession  in  the 


APOtilOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  249 

usual  Episcopal  seii&e  of  thai  phrase.  I  deem  such  a  suc- 
cession of  no  consequence.  Touching  the  validity  of  the 
ordinances  administered  by  our  clergy,  it  is  wholly  unim- 
portant whether  we  can  trace  a  regular  succession  of  bishops 
up  to  the  apostles.  It  is  sufficient  for  us  to  know  that  we 
are  organized  according  to  the  establislied  laws  of  Christ, 
support  the  true  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  that  our  constitution 
and  practice  agree  with  the  rule  prescribed  by  him,  and  which 
were  strictly  obeyed  and  enjoined  by  his  aposdes,  and  that 
we  keep  the  ordinances  as  they  were  delivered  unto  the 
saints.  Such  a  church  is  Christ's  representative  on  earth, 
and,  according  to  his  word,  possesses  all  the  requisite  autho- 
rity to  create  and  ordain  ministers,  whenever  the  cause  of 
Christ  shall  demand  such  a  measure.  If  it  were  not  so,  the 
race  of  ministers  would  be  like  that  of  the  mastodon,  or  some 
other  similar  class  of  animals.  Should  it  by  any  providence 
become  extinct,  it  never  could  be  reproduced,  but  by  a  second 
direct  exertion  by  Jehovah  of  his  creative  power.  That  an  op- 
posite opinion  has  prevailed  in  some  quarters  for  fifteen  centu- 
ries I  am  fully  aware.  But  the  "  divine  righV^  of  kings  and 
bishops  stands  on  the  same  foundation,  and  is  maintained  by 
the  same  arguments.  The  former  is  beginning  to  be  repu- 
diated; the  discovery  cannot  long  be  delayed  that  the  latter  is 
no  less  fallacious.  God  forbid  that  we  should  ever  sanction 
error  merely  because  it  is  venerable  for  its  age. 

The  latter  is  the  question,  somewhat  mooted  of  late, 
whether  Baptists  are  Protestants.  That  we,  like  Lutherans, 
Episcopalians,  and  Presbyterians,  or,  as  they  are  called  in 
Continental  Europe,  the  Reformed  Church,  ever  had  any 
connection  with  Papists,  no  one  will  pretend ;  but  it  is  not 
so  readily  conceded  that  we  are  not  a  "  branch  of  Protest- 
antism." I  remark  on  this  part  of  the  subject,  that  a  pro- 
test must  take  place  in  a  legislative  or  judicial  assembly.    It 


250  BAPTISTS  NOT  PROTESTANTS. 

is,  as  we  understand  it,  a  solemn  declaration  of  dissent  on  the 
part  of  the  minority  from  the  proceedings  of  the  majority  in 
such  an  assembly.  A  declaration  of  this  description  was  en- 
tered by  certain  princes  and  deputies,  as  may  be  seen  in 
Robinson's  History  of  Charles  V.,  and  other  works  having 
reference  to  the  events  of  that  period,  of  imperial  towns  against 
the  celebrated  decree,  dated  April  19,  1550,  of  the  Diet  of 
Spires.  The  dissentients  were  on  this  account  distinguislied 
by  the  name  of  Protestants,  and  this  appellation  was  subse- 
quently extended  to  all  those  sects,  both  on  the  continent  and 
in  England,  indiscriminately,  which  have  revolted  from  the 
See  of  Rome.  With  these  facts  in  view,  it  will  be  seen,  at 
once,  that  Baptists  for  two  reasons  cannot  possibly  be  Pro- 
testants. The  former  is  that  we  do  not,  and  never  did,  recog- 
nize either  the  legislative  or  judicial  authority  of  any  assembly 
whatever  in  matters  of  faith  ;  and  the  other  is,  as  we  never 
had  any  connection  with  Popery,  we  never  could  have  been 
a  minority  in  any  Roman  Catholic  legislative  or  judicial  as- 
semblies, and  therefore  never  could  have  in  that  way  pro- 
tested against  their  decisions.  No  one,  for  example,  would 
think  of  calling  the  Jews  Protestants,  or  of  annexing  the  name 
even  to  the  Greek  Christians.  With  as  little  reason  can  it 
ever  be  associated  with  the  name  of  Baptist. 

Many  careless  thinkers  have  classed  us  among  Protestants, 
because  they  imagine  that  we  sprung  up  among  the  numerous 
sects  that  divided  Christendom  at  the  time  of  the  Reforma- 
tion ;  and  for  a  similar  reason  some  have  even  called  us  dis- 
senters ;  an  appellation  we  repudiate  with  as  much  earnest- 
ness as  we  do  the  other.  Luther,  Calvin,  and  the  English 
Fathers,  adopted  it  is  true,  many  of  the  doctrines  by  which 
we  had  ever  been  distinguished,  but  we  must  not  on  tliat  ac- 
count be  called  Lutherans,  or  Calvinists,  or  by  the  name  of 
any  other  modern  divine.     Neither  can  wc  submit  to  be 


BAPTISTS  NO  MODERN  SF.CT.  251 

classed  with  those  wlio,  after  casting  off  some  of  t].e  shackles 
of  Catholicism,  denominated  themselves  Reformed  churches. 
We  call  not  our  churches  reformed,  because  we  believe  them 
no  better  than  their  predecessors,  established  by  the  primitive 
disciples.  We  are  content  widi  the  name  first  given  us  at 
Antioch,  and  have  allowed  ourselves  to  be  known  by  an 
appellation  of  more  modern  times,  first  intended  as  a  re- 
proach, but  still  expressive  of  the  fact  that  we  admit  only 
believers  to  membership  in  our  churches,  and  still  adhere 
to  the  form  of  initiation  established  by  Christ — their  baptism 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  we  are  not  Protestants,  nor  Dis- 
senters, Lutherans,  Calvinists,  Arminians,  nor  Reformers, 
but  what  we  have  been  in  all  ages,  the  Church  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ. 

We  now  return  to  the  inquiry,  whether  the  Church  at 
present  known  as  Baptist  has  existed  in  all  ages  since  the 
days  of  Christ  ?  To  answer  satisfactorily  the  inquiry  it  is 
necessary  to  observe  that  our  church  is  distinguished  by 
two  prominent  traits — that  she  immerses  exclusively  in  bap- 
tism, and  admits  to  the  ordinance  none  but  believers.  Keep- 
ing these  facts  in  view  we  will,  upon  Pedobaptist  testimony, 
examine  the  primitive  Christians. 

Dr.  Mosheim,  a  distinguished  Lutheran  divine  and  histo- 
rian, in  describing  the  manner  in  which  the  Christian  rites 
were  administered  during  the  first  century,  observes,  "  Those 
who  amended  their  lives  were  initiated  into  the  kingdom  of 
the  Redeemer  by  immersion."*  In  another  place,  "  Con- 
cerning baptism  during  the  first  hundred  years,"  the  same 
learned  writer  remarks,  "  the  sacrament  of  baptism  was  ad- 
ministered without  the  public  assemblies,  in  places  appointed 

*  Eccl.  Hist.  vol.  i.  cent.  1,  part  1,  p.  55. 


252  APOSTOLIC  CHURCHES  BAPTISTS. 

and  prepared  for  ilial  purpose,  and  was  performed  by  im- 
mersing the  whole  body  in  the  baptismal  font."* 

In  testimony  of  the  manner  in  which  this  ordinance  was 
administered  in  the  second  century  and  beginning  of  the  third, 
I  will,  of  many  witnesses,  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  submit  the 
evidence  of  but  two.  Tertullian — "  To  begin  with  bap- 
tism. When  we  are  ready  to  enter  into  the  water,  and  even 
before,  we  make  our  protestations  before  the  pastor  and  in 
the  church,  we  renounce  the  devil  and  all  his  pomps  and 
ministers,  afterwards  we  are  immersed  in  the  water."t  And 
Mosheim  adds — "  The  persons  who,  during  the  second  cen- 
tury, were  to  be  baptized,  after  they  had  repeated  the  creed, 
confessed  and  renounced  their  sins,  and  particularly  the  devil, 
and  his  pomps  and  allurements,  were  immersed  under  ivaterf 
and  received  into  Christ  by  a  solemn  invocation  of  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  according  to  the  express  command- 
ment of  our  blessed  Lord."J 

I  have  now  only  to  ask  if  the  Christians,  down  as  far  as 
the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  were  at  present  to  be 
classed,  with  what  church  would  they  fraternize  in  relation 
to  baptism  ?     The  Baptist,  unquestionably. 

As  to  the  other  prominent  trait — whether  the  primitive 
Christians  baptized  infants — I  will  refer  to  a  few  Pedobap- 
tist  authorities. 

The  eminent  Claudius  Salmasius,  in  agi'eement  with  the 
equally  learned  divine  of  Zurich,  John  Gaspard  Suicerus, 
explicidy  states  :  "  In  the  first  two  centuries,  no  one  was 
baptized  except  being  instructed  in  the  faith,  and  acquainted 
with  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  he  was  able  to  profess  himself  a 
Christian."§  Curelleus  of  Geneva,||  asserts  :  "  The  baptism 
of  infants,  in  the  first  two  centuries  after  Christ,  was  wholly 

*  Vol.  i.  p.  108.  i"  De  Corona  Militis,  apud  Diipin. 

t  Vol.  i.  cent.  2,  ch.  4,  fsec.  13.     ^  Booth's  Psed.  Exam.     II  Ut  supra. 


BAPTISTS  IDENTICAL  WITH  PRIMTTIVH  CHRISTIANS.      253 

niikno'.vn,  but  in  the  third  and  fourth  was  allowed  by  some 
few.  In  the  fifth  and  following  ages,  it  was  generally  re- 
ceived." In  the  Christian  Review,*  we  have  the  following 
testimonies  on  the  point  under  consideration.  Kaiser  :  "  In- 
fant baptism  was  not  an  original  institution  of  Christianity."! 
Baunigarten — Crusius — "  Infant  baptism  can  be  supported 
neither  by  a  distinct  a[)ostoUcal  command,  nor  apostolical  tra- 
dition "J  Neander  says  :  "  The  practice  of  infant  baptism 
was  remote  from  the  spirit  of  this  age.  Not  only  the  late 
appearance  of  any  express  mention  of  infant  baptism,  but 
the  long  continued  opposition  to  it,  leads  to  the  conclusion 
that  it  was  not  of  apostolic  origin."§  I  will  only  add  the 
statement  of  the  learned  Episcopius,  as  quoted  by  Booth. |I 
He  denies  that  even  any  tradition  can  be  produced  for  Pedo- 
baptism  until  a  little  before  the  Milevitan  Council,  A.  D.  418, 
and  maintains  that  "  the  baptism  of  infants  was  not  practised 
in  Asia  until  near  tlie  time  of  that  council." 

We  will  again  ask,  to  what  denomination  would  these 
apostolic  Christians,  who  repudiated  infant  baptism,  and  bap- 
tized only  by  immersion,  at  this  time  be  considered  as  be- 
longing ?  To  Methodists,  to  Presbyterians,  to  Episcopalians  ? 
Does  not  every  man  reply  they  were  certainly  such  religionists 
as  would  now  be  called  Baptists  ?  When  the  doctrines  of 
purgatory,  infant  baptism,  prayers  for  the  dead,  episcopacy, 
the  worshiping  of  martyrs,  affusion  for  baptism,  and  others 
of  simlar  character  began  to  be  introduced,  multitudes  op- 
posed and  protested  against  them.  Had  we  no  other  evi- 
dences of  these  facts,  the  two  which  I  will  mention  would 
abundandy  establish  them.     The  former  is  the  pressing  ex- 

*  Vol.  iii.  No.  10,  art.  4.  t  Bibli.  Theol.  vol.  ii.  p.  178. 

X  History  of  Theology,  vol.  i.  p.  1208. 

§  In  his  Eccl.  Hist,  of  the  Apostolic  Age,  vol.  i.  p.  140. 

II  Pied.  Exam.  „„ 


254  BAPTISTS  IN  THE  DARK  AGES. 

hortations  addressed  to  professed  Christians  to  come  to  bap- 
tism, with  which  the  early  Christian  writings  abomid,  and 
of  which  we  have  an  example  in  Basil's  Oration  ;*  and  the 
latter  is  the  awful  anathemas  constantly  hurled  by  the  domi- 
nant party  against  those  who  denied  infant  baptism  ;  allusion 
to  which  is  had  by  Neander  in  the  passage  from  his  Ecclesi- 
astical History,  a  moment  since  noticed.  Of  what  denomi- 
nation would  these  Christians  now  be  considered  ?  They 
were  reduced  to  the  necessity  either  of  separating  from  their 
brethren,  who  were  thus  corrupting  the  gospel,  or  of  giving 
their  sanction  to  the  perversions  in  question.  They  preferred 
tlie  former  course,  and  that  they  acted  with  great  forbearance 
is  manifest  from  numerous  historical  references  to  the 
events  of  that  period.  Hooker,  for  example,!  though  he 
speaks  sneeringly,  admits  all  that  is  necessary  for  our  pur- 
pose. He  remarks  :  "  These  held  and  practised  their  own 
opinion,  yet  with  great  protestations,  often  made,  that  they 
neither  loved  a  whit  the  less,  nor  thought,  in  any  respect,  the 
worse  of  those  who  were  of  a  contrary  opinion." 

The  Athenian  Society,  a  hterary  association  formed  in 
England  two  hundred  years  ago,  was  made  up  wholly  of 
Pedobaptists.  The  writer  of  its  history  represents  it  as  in 
every  sense  equal  to  the  famed  Royal  Society.  He  saysi — 
"  All  the  endeavors  of  ail  the  great  men  of  all  nations  and 
ages,  from  the  beginning  of  learning  to  this  time,  have  not 
contributed  so  much  to  the  increase  of  knowledge  as  the 
Athenian  Society.  They  commenced  previous  to  1090  a 
"weekly  periodical,  called  the  Athenian  Gazette,  which  name 
was  subsequendy  changed  to  Athenian  Oracle.  This  work 
was  conducted  by  a  committee  of  twelve  of  their  most  com- 

*  Exhort,  ad  Bap.  Wall,  part  i.  ch.  1.2,  sec.  3. 

t  Eccl.  Pol.  Book  5.  p.  324. 

X  Bapt.  Chronicle,  by  E.ev.  Dr.  Baker,  vol.  i. 


BAPTISTS  BEFORE  THE  REFORMATION,  *25o 

petent  men,  selected  from  all  the  learned  professions.  Their 
volumes  are  quoted  witli  confidence  as  authorities,  by  Han- 
nah Adnms,  and  other  distinguished  writers.  In  1G91,  this 
society  was  tlirown  into  a  controversy  with  the  Baptists  re- 
specting the  antiquity  of  the  church,  and  they  affirmed-  that 
"  There  never  was  a  (separate)  particular  congregation  of 
Anabaptists  until  above  three  hundred  years  after  our  Sa- 
viour."  Here  we  have  an  admission  that  there  were  separate 
congregations  of  Baptists  in  the  fourth  century ;  and  their 
testimony  is  enhanced  in  value  by  the  consideration  that  it 
was  given  by  the  enemies  of  our  principles,  and  with  a  view 
to  our  disparagement. 

But  this  Athenian  Society  has  introduced  to  us  a  witness 
whose  deposition  is  entitled  to  more  respect  than  their  own— 
the  celebrated  Swiss  reformer,  Zuinglius,  the  contemporary 
and  co-laborer  with  Luther.  Zuingle  remarks,! — "  Anabap- 
tismi  institutio  non  nupera  et  nova  est,  etc." — "  The  institu- 
tion of  Anabaptism  is  not  a  novelty,  but  for  thirteen  hundred 
years  has  caused  very  great  disturbances  in  the  church,  and 
has  acquired  such  strength  that  the  attempt  in  this  age  to 
contend  with  it,  appeared  futile  for  a  time."  What  shall  we 
say  to  this  declaration?  Zuingle  was  born  in  1487,  was  a 
learned  man,  a  doctor  of  the  University  of  Basle,  and  enjoyed 
better  advantages  than  perhaps  any  other  individual  of  his 
day,  for  obtaining  correct  information  on  this  subject.  If  his 
testimony  is  reliable,  it  proves  that  Anabaptists,  as  we  were 
improperly  called,  existed  for  thirteen  hundred  years  prior  to 
his  time,  that  is,  from  the  close  of  the  second  century,  prior 
to  the  period  at  which,  as  we  have  seen,  ambitious  leaders 
began  to  connipt  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel  with  their  tra- 
ditions, by  substituting  the  commandments  of  men  for  the 

*  Supplement  to  the  Athen.  Ora.,  vol,  iv,  p.  161. 
t  De  Paedobapt.  apud  Athen.  Ora.,  vol.  iv.  p.  161. 


256  BAPTISTS  KNOWN  UNDER  DIFFERENT  NAMES. 

precepts  of  heaven.  There  could,  of  course,  until  Pedobap- 
tism  was  introduced,  be  no  anii-Pedobaptists,  and  until  pseu- 
dobaptism  was  practised,  there  could  be  no  anabaptism.  The 
testimony,  however,  of  this  great  Swiss  reformer  further 
proves,  not  only  that  the  Baptists  had  a  continued  denomina- 
tional existence  from  the  close  of  the  second  century — and 
prior  to  that  period  we  have  shown  that  all  were  Baptists — 
to  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  but  that  they  existed  in  such 
great  strength  and  numbers  as  to  cause  very  serious  difficulty 
among  their  opponents,  and  to  render  "  futile  for  a  time  "  the 
persev^ering  exertions  of  Protestants  to  overcome  and  disperse 
them.  To  the  violence  and  cruelty  of  the  efforts  they  em- 
ployed for  this  purpose,  we  have  before  referred.  At  every 
period  the  demon  of  persecution — 

"  With  delight  did  he  snuff  the  smell 

Of  Baptist  blood  on  earth,  and  high  upturn 
His  nostril  wide  into  the  murky  air 
Sagacious  of  his  quarry  from  so  far." 

But  we  are  told  by  many  illiterate  men,  and  even  women, 
who  have  been  ambitious  to  write  our  history,  that  they  do 
not  read  of  Baptists  till  the  time  of  Cromwell !  Indeed  ! 
And  do  they  not  know  that  our  present  name  is  recent  ?  It 
is  not  the  name,  it  is  the  principle  which  we  seek.  Of  whom 
did  Mosheim  speak,  when  describing  a  body  of  Christians 
every  where  existing  during  the  wliole  of  the  dark  ages,  and 
up  to  the  Reformation,  in  the  following  language  :- — "  They 
held  that  no  persons  whatever  w^ere  to  be  baptized  until  they 
came  to  the  full  use  of  their  reason."*  Stennett,  in  his 
answer  to  Russen,  speaking  of  the  same  churches,  says  they 
entertained  the  belief  recited : — "  Because  to  all  infants,  that 
know  nothing  of  faith,  and  in  whom  there  can  be  no  desire 

•  Eccl.  Hist.  Coat.  12,  ch.  v.  sec.  7. 


BAPTISTS  IN  EVERY   AGE. 


2o 


for  regeneration,  or  confession  of  faiih,  (fee,  the  will,  faith, 
and  confession  of  another,  seems  not  in  the  least  to  apper- 
tain."*    Such  were  the  avowed  sentiments  of  a  class  of  men 
prevailing  always  and  found  in  every  country.     They  were 
in  more  modern  times  known  in  Italy  as  the  followers  of 
Gundulphus  ;  in  France,  under  the  name  of  Berengariaiis ; 
of  Paterenes  in  the  Duchy  of  Milan ;  of  the  Petrobussians 
and  Henricians  in  Langucdoc  and  Provence ;  and  of  the  fol- 
lowers in  Brescia  of  'Arnold.t     AH  these  are  sometimes  in- 
cluded under  the  general  name  of  Waldenses,  and  of  whom 
President  Edwards  says :— "  Some  of  the  Popish  writers 
own   that   that   people  never  submitted  to  the  church  of 
Ilome."J     He  adds — "One  of   these  writers   says— 'J1ie 
heresy  of  the  Waldenses  is  the  oldest  heresy  in  the  v/orkl." 
Beza  aiTinns— "  As  for  the  Waldenses,  I  may  be  permitted 
to  say  that  they  are  the  seed  of  the  primitive  and  purer 
church."      These  Waldenses  were   sometimes  confounded 
with  the  Albigenses,  and  all  were  not  unfrequently  called 
Anabaptists  or  Memionites,  and  of  whom  Mosheim  remarks 
— "  The  true  origin  of  thai  sect  which  acquired  the  name  of 
Anabaptist  by  their  administering  anew  the  rite  of  baptism 
to  those  who  came  over  to  their  communion,  [that  is,  im- 
mersed when  they  became  believers  those  who  had  h^^n 
baptized  in  mfancy,]  and  derived  that  of  Mennonites  from 
the  famous  man  to  whom  they  owe  the  greatest  part  of  thfir 
present  felicity,  is  hidden  in  the  remote  depths  of  antiquity, 
and  is  of  consequence  extremely  difficult  to  be  ascertained."§ 
The  editors  of  the  Edinburgh  Encyclopedia,  under  the 

*P.84 

+  For  more  extensive  information  on  this  point,  see  Hinton'sHiatory 
fo  Baptism,  chapter  vii.  sec.  S. 

X  Hist,  of  Redemption,  period  3,  part  2. 
^  Eccl.  Hist,  vol.ii.  ch.  3,  p.  127,  Baltimore  edition. 
22* 


2.58  BAPTISTS  IN  EVERY  AGE. 

head  of  Baptists,*  say : — "  Wlien  we  take  a  superficial  view 
of  this  sect,  collected,  as  it  were,  into  one  society,  and  in  its 
present  embodied  form,  nothing  appears  more  easy  than  to 
write  its  history,  and  to  specify  the  doctrines  which  are 
peculiar  to  it.  But  when  we  come  to  examine  it  more  mi- 
nutely, we  find  that  it  is  composed  of  very  different  mate- 
rials, and  that  its  origin  is  hid  in  the  remote  darkness  of 
antiquity."  In  speaking  also  of  Anabaptists,  and  mistaking 
them  for  a  different  class  of  Christians  from  Baptists,  they 
represent  them  as  "  a  sect  whose  origin  it  is  difficult  to  trace  ;" 
and  they  add : — "  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  there  were 
many  who  held  these  opinions  before  the  time  of  the  Refor- 
mation." Robertson,  m  his  Preface  to  Claud's  Essay,  while 
tracing  up  the  history  of  those  whose  followers,  since  the 
origin  and  establishment  of  the  Episcopal  church,  have  been 
known  as  Dissenters,  says  : — "  All  the  Dissenters  allowed 
Christian  liberty,  and  all  were  enemies  to  an  estal)lished 
Hierarchy  reigning  over  the  consciences  of  their  brethren,  and 
one  branch  uniformly  in  addition  to  all  this,  denied  the  baptism 
of  infants." 

The  number  of  the  Waldenses  was,  at  the  commencement 
of  the  Reformation,  estimated  by  one  of  their  own  writers, 
at  eight  hundred  thousand.  Their  opinions  on  the  subject 
of  baptism,!  prpve  that  in  the  aggregate  they  were  Baptists. 
*'  The  Book  of  Sentences  of  the  Inquisition  of  Toulouse  '* 
describes  them  as  holding  sentiments  thus  delineated : — "Also 
that  baptism  by  water,  administered  by  the  church,  was  of 
no  use  to  children ;  because  the  children,  so  far  from  giving 
assent  to  it,  cried  at  it."  For  this  heresy  they  were  "  sen- 
tenced^^ to  tlic  cells  of  the  Inquisition,  and  doomed  to  expi- 
ate their  offence  in  the  flames  of  the  Auto  Da  Fe.     They 

•  Amer.  ed.  Phila.,  1812.  t  Jones'  Ch.  Hist.  vol.  ii.  fee. 


ANCIENT  CONFESSIONS  OF  FAITH.  259 

are  further  described  by  Erinengardi*  m  tliis  language : — 
"  These  heretics  say,  moreover,  tliat  this  sacrament  can  be 
of  no  use  to  any  but  those  vv'ho  seek  it  with  their  own  mouth 
and  heart.  Hence  drawing  this  erroneous  conchision  that 
baptism  can  be  of  no  advantage  to  infants." 

All  these  are  testimonies  drawn  from  the  enemies  and  de- 
vourers  of  this  persecuted  people.  What  do  they  prove  them 
to  have  been  ?  What  could  they  have  been  but  Baptists  ? 
But  let  us  examine  their  own  declarations  upon  this  point. 
Their  Confession  of  Faith,  dated  A.  D.  1120,  that  is,  seven 
hundred  and  twenfy-one  years  ago,  and  four  hundred 
and  thirty-one  years  before  the  Reformation,  is  sufficiently 
definite.  At  that  time,  as  all  learned  men  agree,  pouring  or 
sprinkling  was  scarcely  ever  practised,  except  in  the  cases  of 
clinics.  In  the  twelfth  article  of  the  instrument  in  question, 
they  expressly  confine  both  the  ordinances  of  baptism  and 
the  Lord's  supper  to  believers  ;  and  this,  let  it  be  remem- 
bered, was  at  a  tinx3  when  infant  baptism  and  infant  commu- 
nion were  the  Jachin  and  Boaz  of  Pedobaptist  Christianity. 
These  early  disciples  furthermore  held  tliat  "  a  Christian 
church  was  an  assembly  of  believers — faithful  men  and 
women — and  that  of  such  a  church,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  he  alone — not  the  pope — is  the  Head  ;  that  it  is  goV' 
erned  by  his  word,  and  guarded  by  his  Spirit ;  that  it  be- 
hooves all  Christians  to  walk  in  fellowship ;  that  the  only 
ordinances  Christ  has  appointed  for  the  use  of  his  churches 
are  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper ;  that  they  are  botli  sym- 
bolical ordinances,  or  signs  of  holy  things — visible  emblems 
of  invisible  blessings." 

In  another  of  their  Confessions  of  Faith,  written  and  pub- 
lished to  abate,  if  possible,  the  vengeance  of  their  bloody 
persecutors,  they  say — "  We  believe  that  m  the  ordinance 

*  Contra  Waldensium  sectam,  cap.  12. 


2G0  BAPTISTS  IN  EVERY  AGE. 

of  baptism,  the  water  is  the  visible  and  external  sign,  which 
represents  to  us  the  renovation  of  our  minds  through  Christ 
Jesus  ;  and  by  this  ordinance  we  are  received  into  the  holy 
congregation  of  Christ's  people,  previously  professing  and 
declarinij;  our  faith  and  change  of  /j/e."  •■  I  further  observe, 
that  in  a  letter  of  some  of  the  pastors  of  this  truly  primitive 
church  to  OEcolampadius,  dated  A.  D.  1530,  they  say :— ■ 
"We  have  sustained  for  above  \hese.four  hundred  years  most 
severe  and  cruel  persecutions,  but  not  without  signal  marks  of 
Christ's  favor,  as  all  the  faithful  can  testify."  Professing, 
in  these  dark  ages,  doctrines,  so  scriptural,  enlightened  and 
pure,  it  is  an  eulogy  of  no  ordinary  character  upon  us,  which 
was  pronounced  by  the  learned  Limborch,  Professor  of  Di- 
vinity in  the  University  of  Amsterdam,  when  he  said  :-— 
"  To  speak  candidly  what  I  think,  of  all  the  modern  sects  of 
Christians,  the  Dutch  Baptists  most  resemble  both  the  Albi- 
genses  and  Waldenses." 

So  much  I  thought  m.y  former  declarations  required  me  to 
say  in  relation  to  the  history  of  our  church  in  the  days  of 
the  apostles,  and  through  the  dark  ages  up  to  the  time  of  the 
Reformation.  From  that  to  the  present  we  need  not  trace 
the  events  hj  which  we  have  been  distinguished.  Our  his- 
tory has  been  written  in  blood  by  the  hands  of  our  persecutors  ; 
still  it  is  sufEcienriy  distinct  to  prove  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt  that  we  have  had  a  prominent  existence  from  the  days 
of  Christ  in  every  age  to  the  present  hour. 

But  this  is  not  our  only  line  of  descent.  If  the  Christians 
I  have  described  had  never  existed,  there  would  not  have  been 
^vanting  witnesses  for  the  truth.  Among  the  Britons  the  true 
church  existed,  and  the  legitimate  doctrines  and  ordinances 
were  maintained  from  the  time  Christianity  was  planted  in 
that  island  to  the  present  moment. 

♦  Jones'  Ch.  History,  ed.  2,  pp.  49,  50,  70. 


BAPTISTS  IN  BRITAIN.  261 

Ivimy,  ill  his  History  of  the  EngUsh  Baptists,*  and  the 
same  facts  are  detailed  by  Crosby,  and  others,  assures  us  tliat 
the  British  Christians  embraced  the  pure  gospel  in  apostolic 
times,  and  until  the  year  596  remained  undisturbed  in  its 
exercise.  In  that  year  Gregory,  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  sent 
Austin  with  a  train  of  monks  to  convert  them  to  the  Catholic 
faith.  He  arrived,  called  their  ministers  together,  and  made 
tliem  three  propositions,  the  second  of  which  was  in  these 
words  : — "  That  ye  give  Christianity  to  your  children,"  i.  e, 
that  you  christen,  or  baptize  them.  This  they  positively 
refused  to  do.  I  need  not  pause  here  to  inquire  whether 
these  Christians  were  Baptists  ;  I  proceed  to  remark  that 
their  determination  was  reported  at  Rome,  upon  which 
Gregory  decreed  in  these  words  : — "  Let  all  young  children 
be  baptized  as  they  ought  to  be,  according  to  the  traditions 
of  the  Fathers."  Still  they  refused.  Soldiers  were  brought 
upon  them  to  enforce  the  order,  and  many  were  massacred. 
Large  numbers,  however,  escaped  to  the  mountains  of  Wales, 
in  the  fastnesses  of  which,  by  the  providence  of  God,  they 
were  preserved  from  extermination,  and  where,  at  this  very 
hour,  they  exist  by  thousands,  in  possession  of  the  faith  and 
practice  of  the  gospel,  as  it  was  delivered  to  them  by  the 
apostles.  But  two  or  three  centuries  liave  passed  since,  ac- 
cording to  the  History  of  the  English  Dissenters  by  Bennet 
and  Bogue,  except  a  few  government  officers  and  dependants, 
all  Wales  was  Baptist.  On  the  opening  of  the  New  AVorld, 
numerous  whole  churches  were  transplanted  from  thence,  as 
well  as  from  the  continent  of  Europe,  to  these  western 
shores,  and  the  labors  of  whose  ministers  and  members  have 
been  the  chief  instrumentality  in  the  amazing  advancement 
of  our  denomination  in  these  United  States. 

These  facts  and  considerations  demonstrate  that  the  Bap- 

*  Vol.  i.  pp.  42-45. 


202  iMiuoBArTisTis  APa:  the  schismatics. 

tist  is  the  only  church  wliich  can  claim  tlie  apostolic  ori^, 
and  that  in  its  organization  and  objects  it  is  conformed  in  all 
respects  to  the  word  of  God ;  that  the  apostolic  church  was 
Baptist,  and  that  through  several  channels  it  may  be  readily 
and  surely  traced  in  a  state  of  comparative  purity  down  to 
our  times  ;  tliat  it  struggled  through  the  days  of  Popish  dark- 
ness, and  Protestant  ignorannce  and  intolerance,  maintaining 
its  principles  separate  from  both,  ever  bearing  testimony  to 
the  truth  as  a  witness  for  God.  And  can  it  be  that  in  main- 
taining these  principles  unchanged,  and  adhering  unwaveringly 
to  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,  refusing  to  turn  aside 
from  the  laws  of  Christ  in  deference  to  every  new  fancy  of 
modern  religionists,  we  are  guilty  of  producing  a  schism  in 
the  body  of  Christ?  No,  it  cannot  be  credited  by  any  intel- 
ligent man.  It  is  too  late  to  utter  such  a  charge  against  the 
venerable  church  of  which  it  is  our  honor  to  be  members, 
and  which,  as  science,  literature  and  the  arts  have  enliglit- 
ened  the  minds  and  humanized  the  hearts  of  men,  has  come 
forth  from  the  clouds  of  oppression  and  persecution,  shining 
in  her  original  brightness,  and  is  rapidly  covering  the  earth 
with  the  light  of  primitive  and  unadulterated  truth. 

"VVe  have  now  proved  that  not  the  Baptists,  but  the  Pedo- 
baptists  are  the  schismatics.  If  in  the  present  state  of  reli- 
gious intercourse  between  different  churches,  and  the  sevenil 
classes  of  the  same  denomination,  there  is  a  departure  from 
the  true  spirit  of  religion,  and  the  teachings  of  the  word  of 
God,  those  alone  are  responsible  who,  by  their  aberrations 
from  the  divine  law  have  produced  this  state  of  things.  Who 
can  read  the  prayer  of  Christ  for  the  unity  of  his  people 
without  feeling  that  it  is  criminal  thus  to  resist  the  divine 
will.  "  For  them  that  shall  believe  in  me,"  says  the 
blessed  Redeemer,  "I  pray;  that  they  all  may  be  one ;  as 
thou  Father  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be 


THE  REMEDY  FOR  SCHISM.  263 

one  in  us ;  that  the  world  may  beheve  that  thou  liast  sent 
me."*  How  is  this  union,  for  the  blessed  consummation  of 
which,  all  hearts  must  glow  with  anxious  desire,  to  be  pro- 
duced? It  must  be  a  union  in  the  truths  otherwise  it  would 
not  deserve  the  name.  It  can  be  attained  only  by  a  return 
to  original  gospel  principles.  The  schism  in  question  will 
by  this  measure  be  instantly  healed,  every  barrier  removed 
to  free  intercourse,  and  thus  vvdll  be  secured  the  universal 
union  and  communion  of  all  Christians.  If  such  a  result 
is  desirable  ;  if,  as  we  have  seen,  all  the  impediments  to  it 
have  been  brought  in,  and  thus  far  kept  up  by  Pedobap- 
tists  ;  if  theirs  is  the  sin,  and  they  alone  are  responsible  for 
the  consequences ;  it  requires  no  great  skill  in  casuistry  to 
determine  whose  duty  it  is  to  apply  the  remedy.  Let  those 
who  introduced  now  remove  the  barriers,  and  all  will  yet  be 
well.  This  they  can  easily  do  without  violating  their  con- 
sciences in  any  particular. 

When  Pedobaptists  find  their  interest  in  it,  they  can,  and 
do,  as  we  all  know,  dispense  with  sprinkling  infants.  Let 
them  discard  altogether  this  unauthorized  practice.  To  save 
a  good  member,  or  to  satisf}^  his  conscience,  they  can  readily 
immerse  him  when  he  becomes  a  believer,  although  he  may 
have  been  sprinkled  in  infancy.  Such  cases  are  of  not  un- 
frequent  occurrence.  Why  not,  then,  adhere  to  this  practice, 
and  immerse  all  candidates.  They  are  w^ont  to  tell  us  that 
all  these  are  non-essential  matters,  but  Christian  union  is  not 
non-essential.  They  profess  to  be  very  anxious  for  universal 
communion.  As  it  is  their  duty  to  produce  it,  and  as  they 
can  so  easily  attain  the  utmost  of  their  wishes,  it  is  hoped 
they  will  not  hesitate  to  sacrifice  a  mere  non-essential  to  the 
union  of  the  people  of  God.  A  believer  as  the  candidate, 
and  immersion    as    baptism,  all  confess    to    be  legitimate. 

'  John  xvii.  20,  21. 


204  THF,  REMEDY  FOR  SCHISM. 

To  this  intelligent  Pedobaptists  can,  with  a  good  conscience, 
confine  themselves.  Beyond  this  we  cannot,  we  dare  not 
go.  Our  conscience  will  not  permit  us.  Thus  far  all  per- 
fectly harmonize.  Here  let  us  all  pause,  meet,  and  unite, 
and  the  results  will  gloriously  accelerate  that  concord  to 
which  prophecy  has  taught  us  to  look  forward,  when  "  every 
one  shall  see  eye  to  eye,  and  speak  the  same  thing." 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

RECAPITULATION  AND  CONCLUSION. 

Contents  of  the  several  chapters — Summary  of  the  whole — Exhortatioa 
— Union — Liberality — Prosperity — Firm  adherence  to  original  prin- 
ciples— Our  ultimate  triumph. 

Having  briefly  touched  in  the  preceding  chapters  the  seve- 
ral particulars  considered  most  vital  in  this  controversy,  and 
an  explanation  of  which  was  regarded  as  essential  to  an  in- 
telligent decision,  I  hasten  to  close  the  discussion.  For  tins 
purpose  it  may  not  be  improper  briefly  to  recall  attention  to 
the  principal  topics  of  argument  which  have  passed  in  review 
before  us. 

In  our  introductory  observations  we  have  defined  our 
object,  identified  the  points  which  we  have  proposed  to  in- 
vestigate, deprecated  the  motives  which  have  impelled  men 
in  all  ages  to  violate  the  laws  of  charity,  and  explained  the 
reasons  which  have  rendered  on  our  part  an  examination  of 
the  principles  of  sacramental  communion  requisite.  In  seve- 
ral succeeding  chapters  we  have  explained,  enumerated,  illus- 
trated, and  defended  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  communion, 
and  shown  that  they  are  necessarily  as  immutable  as  that 
great  Being  of  whose  divine  will  they  are  at  once  an  emana- 
tion and  a  transcript.  They  consist  in  the  following  radical 
truths  :  The  terms  of  communion — that  we  are  prohibited 
from  adopting  any  terms,  other  than  those  ordained  by  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  to  these  we  are  at  all  times,  and 
in  all  circumstances,  under  obligations  to  adhere,  individually 
and  collectively,  without  addition,  diminution,  or  change. 
ia3  265 


266  RECAPITULATION  OF  ARGUMENTS. 

That,  in  the  second  place,  repentance  towards  God,  faith  in 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Fa- 
ther, and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  indispen- 
sable terms  of  approach  to  the  Lord's  table,  and  to  which 
those  who  have  observed  these  preliminaries  cannot  after- 
wards be  debarred  of  access,  but  in  consequence  of  a  forfeiture 
of  Christian  character,  by  immorality  or  heresy.  These 
facts  we  have  seen  are  scriptural,  reasonable,  and  that  in 
firmly  maintaining  them  we  have  the  full  concurrence,  with 
the  single  exception  of  a  few  open  communion  Baptists,  of 
all  the  Ohristian  world  of  all  nations,  ages,  and  denomina 
tions.  To  all  the  arguments  acknowledged  to  be  of  any 
importance  against  these  conclusions,  such,  for  example,  as 
those  founded  on  the  presumed  nature  of  the  administration 
of  John  the  Baptist,  the  inspired  canons  of  Christian  tolera- 
tion, the  spirituality  of  the  Gospel,  and  several  others,  we 
have  fully,  and  we  trust  satisfactorily  replied,  showing  that 
so  far  from  invalidating  in  any  particular,  they  confirm  and 
establish  the  doctrines  for  which  we  are  professedly  advo- 
cates. And  that,  in  the  third  place,  we  are  not  at  liberty  to 
administer  the  Lord's  supper  for  any  purposes,  however  de- 
sirable they  may  appear  to  us,  or  however  great  may  be  the 
imagined  advantages,  other  than  for  those  designated  by  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Having  thus  traced  the  outlines  of  our  faith  with  regard  to 
the  eucharist,  we  have  enumerated  the  several  reasons  why 
we  cannot  engage  in  sacramental  communion  with  Pedobap- 
tists,  among  which  we  have  noted  especially  that  in  so  doing, 
we  must  necessarily  either  renounce  or  practically  falsify  all 
those  principles  which  we  have  explained,  and  so  fully  and 
sincerely  avowed,  and  which  are  held  sacred  and  true  equally 
by  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists,  and  tacitly  assent  to  others  the 
truth  or  proprinty  of  which  we  cannot  conscientiously  ac- 


ARGUMENTS  RECAPITULATED.  267 

knowledge.  We  cannot  commune  with  them,  bet;ause  Jesus 
Ciirist  expressly,  as  all  of  them  confess,  requires  baptism  as 
a  preliminary,  and  they  have  not  been  baptized.  This  dis- 
qualification is  apparent,  not  only  from  the  fact  that  they 
received  the  rite,  if  it  may  be  called  such,  in  unconscious 
infancy,  at  which  age  the  law  of  Christ  not  only  does  not 
authorize,  but  positively  forbids  its  reception,  but  also  from 
tlie  consideration  that  sprinkling  or  pouring  was  in  the  ad- 
ministration substituted  for  the  ordinance  of  Christ,  which 
m  ule  what  they  received  a  rite  of  their  own  invention,  and 
in  no  sense  obedience  to  the  command  of  the  adorable  Re- 
deemer. As  our  final  reason,  we  have  shown  that  all  the 
sects  of  Pedobaptists  attach  an  immoderate  and  unscriptural 
importance  to  both  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  represent- 
ing them  as  the  seals  of  divine  grace,  the  means  of  entering 
into  the  covenant  of  mercy,  and  effectual  instrumentalities  of 
salvation.  When  administered  for  such  purposes,  or  for  any 
other  than  as  testimonies  of  our  love  and  obedience  to  Christ, 
it  is  very  evident  that  we  can  neither  receive  baptism  at  their 
hands,  nor  mingle  with  tliem  at  the  holy  table. 

The  next  topic  we  have  submitted,  is  the  tendency  and 
effect  of  open  communion  considered  merely  as  a  matter  of 
policy.  Under  this  head  we  have  pointed  out  the  deceptions 
liable  to  be  practised  upon  our  judgment,  and  our  feelings  ; 
shown  that,  guided  by  the  principles  of  reason,  enlightened 
by  the  word  of  God,  it  is  impossible  to  reach  the  conclusion 
that  promiscuous  communion  is  good  policy ;  we  have  intro- 
duced its  history  and  proved  by  all  the  facts  attendant  upon 
its  progress,  in  both  hemispheres,  and  during  the  last  hundred 
years,  that  so  far  from  exercising  a  salutary  influence  in  our 
favor,  it  has  proved  itself  as  a  matter  of  policy  absolutely 
ruinous  ;  and,  finally,  that  it  is  ingenuously  confessed  by  its 
warmest  and  most  able  advocates,  that  were  the  Baptist 


2G8  ARGUMENTS  RECAPITULATED. 

church  universally  to  adopt  unrestricted  communion,  we 
should  sooii  cease  to  exist  as  such,  and  our  members  find 
refuge  in  the  little  communities  around  us,  the  oldest  of 
which  did  not  exist  until  our  church  had  run  a  career  of  fif- 
teen centuries. 

We  have  also  fully  and  satisfactorily  shown,  after  all  that 
has  been  said  of  our  selfishness  and  bigotry  on  the  subject 
of  sacramental  and  religious  intercourse,  that  we  are  palpably 
more  free  and  liberal  m  our  communion  than  any  class  of 
Pedobaptists  whatever.  This  fact  is  demonstrated  by  com- 
paring our  course  in  reference  to  all  our  members  who  are 
confessedly  baptized,  with  those  of  Pedobaptists  towards 
theirs,  two  thirds  of  whom  they  themselves  debar  from  their 
own  table,  and  still  complain  of  our  want  of  liberality;  by 
the  exclusive  claims  of  Episcopacy,  and  the  intercourse,  as 
evinced  by  the  Acts  of  Conferences,  Synods,  General  Assem- 
blies, and  the  tone  of  the  religious  press,  existing  between 
the  several  Methodist  and  Presbyterian  sects ;  and  by  the 
well  known  truth  that  the  fraternal  associations  between 
them  and  ourselves  are,  to  say  the  least,  as  cordial,  as  be- 
tween the  several  parties  into  which  pedobaptism  is  divided. 

We  have  closed  the  discussion  by  briefly  considering,  and 
amply  refuting,  tlie  charge  so  often,  and  so  confidently,  pre- 
ferred against  us,  that,  in  maintaining  a  communion  restricted 
to  baptized  believers,  of  known  orthodoxy  and  moral  charac- 
ter, and  declining  to  institute  any  new  terms  of  communion, 
or  to  participate  in  the  eucharist  for  any  purposes  other  than 
to  evince  our  love  and  obedience  to  the  Redeemer,  and  to 
show  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come,  we  are  guilty  of  dividing 
the  body  of  Christ,  and  obnoxious  to  the  character  of  schis- 
matics. We  have  demonstrated,  by  the  word  of  God,  that, 
in  doctrine,  in  polity,  and  especially  m  sacramental  practice, 
we  are  identical  with  the  apostles ;  and  shown  by  ample 


ARGUMENTS  RECAPITULATED. 

references  to  the  authentic  history  of  the  times,  as  recorded 
by  our  opponents,  that  we  coincide  with  the  primitive  Chris- 
tians, during  the  first  three  hundred  years  ;  that  when  pedo- 
baptism,  sprinkling,  infant  communion,  and  the  train  of 
similar  innovations,  were  introduced,  their  abettors  broke  off 
from  the  true  church,  and  became  a  corrupt  religious  society, 
destitute  of  the  divine  favor,  and  despoiled  themselves  of 
ecclesiastical  character  and  authority  ;  their  very  persecutions, 
enjoying  the  favor  of  the  Roman  emperors,  and  therefore 
the  stronger  party,  have,  in  part,  enabled  us  to  trace  the 
legitimate  church  of  Christ,  which  we  have  distinctly  done, 
through  two  channels,  separate,  equally,  from  Protestants 
and  Papists,  and  the  perpetual  prey  of  both,  down  to  our 
times.  Thus  we  have  seen  that  those  who  have  separated 
themselves,  and  not  we,  who  have  ever  maintained  original 
principles,  are  the  schismatics.  If  the  definition  of  Swift  be 
entitled  to  respect,  this  sin  consists,  not  so  much  in  separat- 
ing from  those  who  profess  to  be  followers  of  Christ,  as  in 
departing  from  the  truth  which  he  has  revealed,  we  can, 
in  no  sense,  therefore,  be  implicated,  nor  shall  we  ever  be- 
come liable  to  the  charge,  unless  we  yield  to  the  clamor  of 
open  communionists,  and  go  over  to  pedobaptism.  Then, 
indeed,  shall  we  too  be  guilty,  and  the  withering  leprosy  will 
have  covered  the  last  healthy  meml^er  of  the  body  of  Christ. 
The  existence  of  schism  and  the  criminality  of  its  indul* 
gence,  have  been  fully  recognized,  and  it  has  been  shown 
that  the  only  method  by  which  it  can  be  healed,  is  the  return 
of  all  Christians  to  the  pure  and  unadulterated  Gospel  of 
Messiah,  to  embrace  it  without  reserve,  to  practise  with  sin- 
cerity, and  to  be  governed  by  its  laws  in  all  things.  When 
tliis  happy  disposition  shall  prevail,  and  influence  the  actions 
of  men,  and  not  until  then,  will  the  dying  prayer  of  the  Re- 
deemer be  answered,  and  the  world  be  subjugated  to  his 
23* 


270  EXHORTATION  TO  FIRMNESS. 

peaceful  rei^n.  As  the  whole  responsibility  of  the  existing 
condition  of  things  in  the  religious  world  rests  upon  the  Pe- 
dobaptists ;  as  the  evils  that  prevail  are  referable  to  them, 
and  can  only  be  removed  by  them ;  as  they  profess  to  feel  a 
deep  interest  in  the  union  and  communion  of  all  the  people 
of  God ;  and  as  the  appropriate  movement  on  their  part, 
would  undoubtedly  accomplish  all  these  great  and  glorious 
results  ;  may  we  not  hope  that,  laying  aside  all  human  ex- 
pedients, inventions  of  men,  and  every  time-serving  system 
of  policy,  and  submitting  to  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  of 
truth,  they  will,  at  no  distant  period,  be  found  walking  with 
us,  in  the  path  of  holy  and  full  obedience  ! 

I  have  only  to  add  my  earnest  and  affectionate  exhortation 
to  all  our  brethren,  in  every  part  of  our  wide  spread  land,  to 
stand  unmoved  on  your  original  ground— 

"  Firm  as  the  surge  repelling  rock." 

On  this  subject  I  will  not  allow  myself  to  entertain  fears  that 
any  one  will  hesitate  or  waver.  The  principles  and  practice 
by  which  we  have  hitherto  been  characterized,  so  far  as  they 
accord  with  the  word  of  God — and  all  else  we  repudiate — • 
may  subject  us  to  reproach ;  they  may,  as  they  have  done, 
call  down  upon  our  heads  the  wrath  and  persecution  of  place, 
ambition,  and  power,  but  they  can  never,  in  the  smallest 
particular,  be  abandoned.  The  spirit  of  true  religion  is  too 
exalted  to  stoop  to  the  mean  arts  by  which  the  demagogue 
courts  the  smiles  of  popular  favor.  The  reputation  of  a  free 
and  generous  liberality  may,  perhaps,  be  innocently  desired, 
but  it  can  be  of  little  ultimate  value  to  him  who  must  sacri- 
fice for  its  attainment  the  approbation  of  a  good  conscience. 
No  Baptist  can  permit  such  considerations  to  occupy  a  place 
in  his  heart.     A  union  with  our  brethren  of  all  denomina- 


ULTIMATE  UNION.  271 

tions,  and  a  prosperity,  however  unbounded,  which  may  be 
purchased  at  tlie  expense  of  revealed  truth  and  Christian 
fidelity,  hold  out  no  attractions  for  us.  The  bond  of  the  one 
would  prove  a  rope  of  sand,  an  association  equally  displeas- 
ing to  God,  and  injurious  to  his  people ;  and  the  brightness 
of  the  other  but  the  glare  of  the  ignis  fal tins,  which 

" Leads  to  bewilder,  and  dazzles  to  blind." 

Light  is  spreading.  Truth  is  taking  hold  on  the  hearts 
of  men.  Darkness  is  receding.  The  spirit  of  inquiry  is 
abroad.  Revelation  is  assuming  its  rightful  authority.  Every 
religious  pretension  must  ere  long  be  brought  to  this  test. 
Our  triumph  is  not  distant.  Until  it  come,  let  every  man 
acquit  himself  with  a  firmness  and  intrepidity  worthy  of  the 
fiflorious  cause  it  is  our  honor  to  defend. 


THE    END. 


A     A     A     A     A  r^T't 


4^^  BY    MRS.   A.  M.   EDMOXD.  ^> 

^^  13  mo.     228  pages.     PRICE  50  CENTS.  tg^ 

^j^?  -^'""'  ^^-  ^-  ^^'"'-  ^^  Missionary  to  China.  Q^ 

'€*       "  I  have  just  been  reading  the  life  of  the  late  Mrs.  Comstock,    ^^^ 
^■i\    ^^^  think-  it  a  model  Memoir.     Without  opening  the  sanctuary  of    i^^ 

'r§<    domestic  life  to  public  inspection,  without  obscuring  the  scene  by    t^^^ 
^V*^    the  shadow  of  the  author,  and  with   neither  a  want  of  incident    A^ 

»-M    nor  an  excess  of  journaiisiu.  this  unpretending  volume  presents    ^ 
^^   one  of  the  finest  and  fairest  pictures  of  the  trials  of  Missionary    V|«^ 
^^   life,  and  the  triumph  of  Christian  principle,  to  be  found  in  modern    S^ 
j?^   biography.    1  wish  it  might  be  read  by  every  Christian  in  the    (T;^ 
^^    land."  Yi 

f>^  From  the  Clo-istian  Times.  *->»^ 

^fStS        ••'  The  subject  of  this  Memoir,  like  many  other  missionaries,    y^g*' 

^    found  an  early  grave  in  a  foreign  land.     She  made  herself  kn    ^^ 
<V|i^    offering  to  Christ,  who,  accepting  the  gift,  took  her  early  to  him-    Q^^ 

t|y    self.     The  incidents  of  her  missionary  life,  her  character  as  a    ^^ 
M"4?    Christian  wife  and  mother,  are  here  happily  sketched.    The  author    >|»> 

14^    shows  a  deep  appreciation   of   her  subject,  and  has  done  good    ^^ 
^^    service  to  the  cause  of  religion  and  missions."  CK^ 

^  From  the.  New  York  Recorder.  ^^. 

^♦|X        "We  welcome  this  volume  as  an  interesting  and  valuable  addi-    i^'j^ 

^^    tion  to  the  memorials  of  those  noble  women  whom  our  American    ('^^ 
^a?    Zion  has  given   to  the   missionary  service,  and  believe   it  will    .-^J^ 

■>^y    awaken  in  many  hearts  a  new  sense  of  indebtedness  to  him  who    p^ 
^M^    has  loved  us.  and  quicken  many  purposes  to  follow  her  who  so    \\*t> 
^^    diligently  followed  her  Lord."  •;g^ 

^-"PP  From  the  American  Biptist  Memorial.  A^ 

M^        "Well  written,  and  issued  in  a  handsome   style.     With   the    fjfi 
^ItaK    heroism,  the  adventure,  the  self-sacrifice,  the   strange  scenes  of  a    rt^^ 

j^    new  land,  the  striking  characteristics  of  an  unknown  people  there    ^|,, 
^^    is  as.soeiated  a  consciousness  of  truth,  of  reality,  in  the  volume.     /"K^ 

i^    that  invests  it  with  an  interest  to  which  fiction  can  never  attain."    ^^ 
^^  From  the  Watchman  and  Rejlector.  CJ>£^ 

'^       '•  The  book  will  be  prized  not  only  by  a  large  circle  of  acquaint-    f^^ . 
ikWl   ance  and  friends,  but  as   adding   another   choice   name  to  our 
already  rich  and  widening  missionary  biography." 
From  the  Xew  York  Baptist  Register. 
'•We  commend   this  book  as  presenting  in  Mrs.  Corastock  a    fiJjV 
model  of  Christian  excellence  and  faithfulness.  ^^r* 


i^ 
W' 


nS  ARCH  STllKKT.  I'illL.VDI'LPIITA.  ^J 

^^  ^1^  j^^  ^^  ^;^  y»^  j'pi  ?»;K  '^ry  ^7^  /T^  ^^  SS  P^^ 
'^    ^""•if"'^'  i?     %*     "v      V     V     V     V     %'     V  vfh»*'^ 


^i 


^ 


Complete  in  One  Volume,  12mo.,  432  pp., 
WITH  SIXTY-THREE  ENGRAVINGS. 

Price  $1.00. 

New  and  Improved  Edition. 


TRAVELS  IN  SOUTH  EASTERN  ASIA  :  embracing  Hindustan, 
Mala>a,  Siani  and  China;  with  notices  of  numerous  Mission- 
ary Stations,  and  a  full  account  of  the  Burman  Empire.    By 
Howard  Malcom,  D.D.,  President  of  the  University  at  Lewis 
burg. 
Twenty  Thousand  copies  of  this  valuable  work  have  been  already 
sold.    It  has  been  reviewed  favorably,  by  the  leading  magazines  of 
America,  England,  and  the  East  Indies,  and  in  most  of  the  promi- 
nent newspapers,  and  noticed  also  in  many  letters  from  Mission- 
aries, and  no  statement  in  it  has  ever  been  contradicted  or  cor- 
rected. 

Opinion  qf  Dr.  Adoniram  Judson. 
"There  is  more  correct  information  in  this  book  on  sulijects  con- 
nected with  modern  Missions,  than  can  be  found  in  any  other  pub- 
lication." 

Opinion  of  Dr.  Francis  WayJavd. 
"  Unless  we  greatly  err,  this  volume  will  become  a  stock  book  of 
travels,  and  will  remain  as  a  book  of  reference  and  entertainment, 
after  many  of  its  contemporary  journals  have  been  forgotten.  * 
*  We  hail  the  work  as  a  valuable  addition  to  our  knowledge  of 
the  East." 

From  the  EccUctic  Review,  (England). 
"We  heartily  and  strongly  recommend  this  volume  as  intrinsi- 
cally valuable,  and  as  embodying  a  mass  of  intelligence  on  India, 
which  so  far  as  our  information  extends,  will  be  sought  in  vain  in 
an  ecpial  number  of  pages  of  any  volume  of  English  literature." 


p    Jlmcricait  lajtist  lubiitntmn;  Bmt\i, 

m  118  ARCH  STREET,  PHILADELPHIA. 


t?..  *^i^  vjiT*/'  \»V'  %»*«/'  \oV'  'i»*4'Vv*<  '^v^  W  '^' 


^:^J  BY  A   MINISTER'S  WIFE.  t^^ 

Wi  18mo.     337  pp.     Price  50  cts.  fP, 


y^ 


i}/U   ly  graphic  power,  in  depth  of  insight,  in  variety  of  incident  and    Q*^ 
^^    character,  and  exquisite  touches  of  moral  application,  "Western    t.^- 
'i*jr<    Side,"  will  claim  the  highest  place  among  this  popular  class  of    Q^^ 


books,  as  indeed,  its  original  composition  antedated  them  all.    Our    ^'f. 
churches  and  ministers  without  exception  may  find  lasting  benefit    Q^ 


i> 


i^ 


^!^^    as  well  as  delight  from  it;  perusal.     A  fine  12mo.  edition  is  now 
issued.    Price,  75  cents. 

From  the  Western  Literary  Messenger.  ^>*^ 

fWPMtprn  Sirip  is  nrIn>iT-.qhlv  siiitpi]  tfi  its  rhnracter.  and     ^^ 


"  The  style  of  Western  Side  is  admirably  suited  to  its  character,  and 
as  a  whole  the  book  is  a  faithful  exponent  of  the  spirit  of  the  West. 
It  contains  less  incident  but  more  reflection  than  '  Sunny  Side,' 
equal  beauty,  but  more  strength ;  and  we  wish  some  of  its  pas- 
sages were  written  with  a  pen  of  iron  on  every  Christian  mother's 
heart  in  the  land,  that  she  might  not  by  her  ill-judged  tenderness,  Q^ 
unfit  tho! 
heaven." 


unfit  those  whom  God  has  given  her,  to  serve  on  earth  or  reign  in    f  If.  ?u 
From  the   Christian  Era.  ^fl»^ 


"  As  graphic  and  touching  as  either  '  Sunny'   or   '  Shady  Side.  Qll 

*       *    It  will  awaken  a  deeper  interest  in  the  cause  of  the  minis-  ^^ 

try  in  the  new  states,  and  we  hope  for  this  reason  it  may  be  read  ^ 

extensively,  and  produce  the  same  efifect  on  others  that  it  did  pp|> 

on  us.-'  ^^.> 

From  the  Mother's  Jotirnal.  -y^ 

"We   have  noticed  the  different  "■  Sidc^  successively,  as  they  ^■^, 

have  been  presented  by  their  authors,  and  while  we  will  give  the  j^^ 

precedence  in  point  of  importance  to  neither,  we  must  say  that  ^ 

'  Western  Side'  is  as  worthy  of  consideration,  and  of  as  wide  spread  (^^ 
popularity  as  the  others.    It  is  not  only  'Western  Side,'  but  the 
other  side  altogether,  and  is  a  faithful  delineation  of  the  causes 
of  failure  in  the  ministerial  profession.  *    *    It  lis  written  in  pleas- 
ing style,  full  of  principles  and  appeals." 

<»■>> 


Kiu 


lis  ARCH  STREET,  PHILADELPHIA.  )^^> 


j(^    A    A.    A    A    A    A    A    A    A    A    A    A  _A  1^1 


i&xm  aiitr  l^pastlcsljip 


ILLUSTRATED  IN  THE  LIFE  OF  JUDSOK        W 

BY   R.  W.  CUSHMAN,  D.  D.  ^^ 

18mo.     144  pages.     PRICE  25  CENTS.  C^* 

'  *"'  ' ~  ^^ 

From  the  Zion^s  Advocate.  S>j 

"  This  volume  sets  forth  in  an  able  and  lucid  manner  some  of    -^^^ 
the  prominent  traits  in  the  character  of   Judsou,  which  render  p-^j 
iiim  a  worthy  example  for  all  the  followers  of  Christ.     The  accom-     |*^ 
panyinc;  address  upon  '  The  moral  Likeness  of  Men  as  a  ground  tN] 
of  EncouraK<'meiit  in  Missionary  Labors,'  exhibits  very  clearly  an  ''.|«|^ 
important  fact  in  human  nature,  and  furnishes  valuable  hints  ^^i 
not  only  to  the  Missionary  among  the  heathen,  but  to  all  who  t;!^^ 
labor  for  the  conversion  of  men."  Cfe^^ 

Fi'om  the  National  Magazine.  -I*^ 

"No  man's  life  could  more  fitly  illustrate  grace  and  apostleship  t^ 
than  that  of  this  prince  of  missionaries,  Judson.     Though  a  Bap-  '.^^^ 
tist,  his  name  and  its  peculiar  associations,  are  the  inheritance  of   U^i 
the  entire  church.    We  Avarmly  recommend  a  perusal  of  this  t^^ju 
volume."  C^jj 

From  the  Christian  Era.  ^-^♦^ 

"  Such  a  book  will  quicken  the  faith  of  God's  people,  and  in-  tsT 

spire  the  saints  with  a  more  earnest  desire  to  do  the  will  of  God  f^S^ 

according  to  the  terms  of  the  great  commission.     We  heartily  ^?.^^ 

recommend  it."  {'•^■•i, 

From  the  Michigan  Christian  Herald.  Qh'i 

"This  little  volume  comes    to  us  in  the  chaste  and  pure  style  r^'^ 
which  distinguishes  all  the  author's  productions.  *  *  The  cause  tM?^ 
of  religion  and  of  missions  will  rejoice  in  the  wide  circulation  of   i~ii 
such  a  book."  C}^i^ 

From  the  W'sfern  Recmrler.  f^^ 

"  It  appeared  to  us,  as  we  read  it  through  at  one  sitting,  as  the  jfei^ 
best  portraiture  of  that  wonderful  man  we  had  ever  read.     It  is  ^^t 
certainly  an  excellent  little  work.     We  received  more  pleasure  in 
its  perusal  than  from  any  work  of  the  size  we  remember  ever  to 


^h:r 


m 


have  read."  > 

From  the  Southern  Baptist. 


^®  "  ^*  'bears  throughout  the  stamp  of  the  author's  affectionate  f^^j^ 

iM  na^ture  and  classic  taste,  but  will  be  even  more  esteemed  for  the  tKr 

^  lofty  piety  which  it  inculcates.     The  work  is  in  character  with  its  (fj^ 

^%K  subject ;  it  cannot  have  a  higher  recommendation."                            iV/^ 

(^  ****** ~~ — ■ 

118  Alien  STREET,  PHILADELPHIA. 

f^v-T^  'T^,--tn  tr^-^  ir~-.r^  fr:^^  '^\^  fr^^  g^^^;;^ 


Y.M^  A    A^  A    A     A    A    A  ^A    A    A    A    A    A    A  z^^*^ 

%^^^  xi^a?  \^^  \is  ^*  */■  v*^  s-;^  ^i^;:/  \^'^  .-^'  skv"''i;c'  si-^.'  \vi.'  s^^  ^*v|t 

f  TilE  STM  OF'tHEIdDER^^ 

*3;S    THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  STANLEY  FAMILY.    ^ 


B2  Inuxit  ©obDlin^  ^t  ^Ktt. 
18nio.     132  pages.     PRICE  30  CENTS. 


*  Ji)  A   Tale  of  truth   admirably  told,  exemplifying  in  the  most  y 

-^"^  touching  manner  the  evils  of  intemperance,  in  its  insidious  pro-  ff 

Jj  grcss,  blighting  the  bpautiful  promise  of  youth,  talent,  education,  Q| 

^i>|s^  and  position  in  society,  and  reducing  a  once  lofty  family  to  the  pi 

^*Ji')  depth?!  of  misery  and  ruin.     We  remember  nothing  of  the  kind  A 

"C^  more  beautiful  or  more  tragical.     Would  that  every  family  in  the  ^^ 

^*jl'\  land  might  read  it,  and  ponder  its  lessons.    Its  religious  character   A 

TS  is  one  of  the  chief  points  of  excellence.                                                  ^ 

^*j{  From  the  Christian  Era.                                       ^ 

^^  "This  is  a  true  story  from  the  pen  of  a  daughter  of  Rev.  Dr. 

^^\\  Dowling,  and  is  designed  to  illustrate  the  evils  of  wine  and  strong 

'^i  drink.     In  the  history  of  the  Stanley  family,  we  shall  recognize 

^>0  the  history  of  many  other  families,  and  our  hearts  will  bleed  over 

>'^  the  sorrows  of  those  relatives  who  have  given  themselves  up  to 

the  evils  of  the  cup." 


i 


3^.5.  Prom  the  Michigan  Christian  Herald. 

^*Y\       '■  Another  of  1  he  interesting  series  constantly  issuing  from  the  ^||> 

:g^  press  of  our  Publication  Society,  calculated  to  interest,  admonish  ^^ri 

^i^  and  instruct  the  young.     The  history  of  the  Stanley  family  is  a  f^.ji 

'^_^r)  fearful  warning  on  the  subject  of  intemperance,  giving  the  results  (^g^ 

^I^  of  unchecked  indulgence  in  the  use  of  intoxicating  drinks."  fj^'-Jt 

'^g  From  the  Western  Recorder.  ^Sj 

^^*       "  This  is  a  neat  little  volume,  and  should  be  read  by  every  '  Tj| 

•  j^J  hu.sband,  parent,  and  youth  in  our  land.     It  is  a  tale  of  thrilling  t^' 

^■\^  interest,  founded  on  facts,  in  which  the  author  has  faithfully  f^ 

*^^  portrayed  the  drunkard,  and  the  great  evil  of  intemperance."         ^ 

^^  From  the  Journal  and  Messenger.  ff^ 

■jQ       '■  The  incidents  are  tragic,  like  all  illustrative  of  the  ravages  of  U 

.'^4^  intemperance.     They  are  related,  woven  together,  and  expressed  fj 

^'^.)  with  power  and  pathos.     It  will  prove  a  very  effective  little  book  Cj^ 

;*^'^  on  the  subject  for  general  circulation." 

'"^^  From  the  Amencan  Baptist  Memoriol.  i} 

.;^'^       "  It  so  depicts  the  dangers  and  the  woe  of  intemperance,  that 
•J^  we  should  think  every  youthful  reader  would  shudder  at  the 
3'^  sight  of  a  bottle,  and  shrink  from  touching  it,  as  they  would  from 
a  veritable  adder." 


118  ARCH  STREET,  PHILADELPHIA. 


%7^  ^  V  w^  sr  v^  ^  V  V  '-^  w  V  ^^  ^*  tf  v^i-^ 


A^  PUBLISHED    BY   THE  ^P^ 

#i^  118  Arch  Street,  Philadelphia.  fe 


TRAV^JHiS  IN  SOUTH-EASTERN  ASIA:  Embracing  Hindnstan, 
Mau.ya,  Siam  and  China ;  with  notices  of  numerous  Mis- 
sionary Stations,  and  a  full  account  of  the  Burman  Empire. 
By  HoAVARD  Malcom,  D.D.,  President  of  the  University  at 
Lewisburg,  Pa.  With  sixty-three  Engravings.  Tenth  Amer- 
ican edition.    1  vol.,  12mo.    432  pages.  .  .  $1.00. 

WILLIAM  CAREY  :  A  Biography.  By  Joseph  Belcher,  D.D., 
With  a  superb  Mezzotint  of  Carey  and  his  Pundit,  and  other 
flue  and  trutlaful  Engravings.    12mo.    306  pages.    80  cents. 

CHRIST  OUR  LIFE :  In  its  Origin,  Law,  and  End.  (  A  $1000  Prize 
Essay,)  by  Joseph  Angus,  D.D.,  President  of  Stepney 
College,  London.    12mo.    336  pages.  .  .  75  cts. 

THE  ROCK  OF  FAITH  IN  CONTRAST  WITH  THE  QUICK- 
SANDS OF  MODERN  SKEPTICISM.  By  John  Morrison, 
D.  D.  LL.  D.  18mo.  224  pp 35  cts. 

THE  BELIEVER'S  POCKET  COMPANION  ;  or  Putting  on  Christ 
the  one  thing  needful.  By  Wm.  Mason.  18  mo.  136  pp.     25  cts. 

THE  BAPTISMAL  BALANCE.  By  J.  Newton  Brown.  18  mo. 
70  pp 15  cts. 

A  WORD  IN  PASSING,  to  those  who  have  abandoned  the 
Church  of  Rome,  and  her  Traditions.  Trani^lated  from  the 
French  of  Rev.  C.  H.  0.  Cote,  M.  D.    18  mo.    36  pp.         3  cts. 

BUNSEN'S  VIEW  OF  BAPTISM,  Ancient  o,nd  Modern.  By  Irah 
Chase,  D.  D.    18  mo.  36  pp.        .  .  .  .  3  cts. 

GRACE  AND  APOSTLESIIIP,  Illustrated  in  the  Life  of  Judson. 
By  R.  W.  Cushman,  D.D.    18  mo.  144  pp.  .  25  cts- 

ROME  AGAINST  THE  BIBLE,  AND  THE  BIBLE  AGAINST 
ROME  or  Pharisaism,  Jewish  and  Papal.  By  William  S. 
Plumer,  D.  D.  18  mo.  130  pp.  ...  25  cts. 

SUNDAY  SCHOOL  BOOKS.  Many  new  and  attractive  Sunday 
School  Books  have  recently  been  added  to  the  already  large 
collection  of  the  Society's  Publications  in  this  Department. 
Also  new  Tracts,  &c.  &c. 


m 


A     »%     A     J^,     A     A     A     A     A     A     A     A     A     A  ,  J^ff 

^S  iir^ -V-a^  viS  iiS?  ^i2  ^:^]  v^  vc-^  ^^^^ 

llonte  Hgninst  t|e  §iHe,g 


%  AND  THE  BIBLE  AGAINST  ROME: 


>^ 


^:^>  Or,   Pharisaism,   Jewish    and  Papal. 


^ 


'<:) 


-^^  BY  WM,   S.  PLUMER,  D.   D. 

ISmo.     129  pages.     PRICE  25  CENTS. 


^  iVom  tte  Christian  Chromde,                                 fj? 

^*^)  '•'  This  little  volume  is  from  the  pen  of  a  most  able  and  accom-  Clu 

-..^'^  plished  scholar.     Dr.  Plumer.  of  Baltimore,  has  but  few  equals  as  flSj 

"^  an  impressive  preacher,  or  a  vigorous  writer.     He  is  entirely  at  Q^ 

^:^  home  with  The  nature,  history,  and  results  of  the  papal  religion.  ^ 

^  VS  and  in  this  book  has  presented  the  subject  before  the  public  in  a  g^ 

^i^  masterly  manner.     It  will  do  good  in  the  family,  and  especially  ^ 
in  the  Sabbath  School  Library."                                                               )^ 

.  -'^  From  the  ChrMian  Secretary.                                 ^m 

K^^  ''  It  shows  in  a  clear  and  precise  manner,  what  Pharisaism  was  ^^ 

^.'*^  among  the  Jews,  and  that   Pharisaism  among  the  Papists  goes 

^*Ml     "  ■■   ' 


<i 


beyond  it.  It  also  .=!hows  the  hostility  of  popery  to  the  general  Q 
circulation  of  the  Word  of  God — that  this  opposition  is  un.scrip-  ^^ 
tural  and  unreasonable,  and  is  condemned  by  the  voice  of  H 
antiquity.  It  concludes  with  an  address  to  Romish  priests,  to  ^ 
private  members  of  the  Romish  church,  and  to  Protestants."  v! 

From  the  New  York  Baj^tist  Eegister.  ^^ 


<«- 


'A'i       '"''he  writer  shows  clearly  that   Catholics  are  scarcely  more  t\C^ 

r>^»  favorable  to  the  Douay  vei-sion  than  to  any  other,  and  that  their  *v] 

*-K  opposition  is  to  the  Bible  itself."  (M^ 

,'"v^  Prom  the  Presbyterian  Banner.  f!^U«. 

' ,fA       "This  little  volume   is  admirably  cond<^n.sed.  and  filled  with  Cfe 

^-'ti!^  solid  matter  in  the  author's  usual  effective  manner.  *   *  It  will  t"^^ 

'',Jij  repay  the  labor  of  several  perusals."  vfel 

ef  ?i3  From  the  Presbyterian.  d^ 

Kv       "  The  kind  of  book  which  should  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  2^ 

^♦ii<  general   readers,  who   wish  to  ascertain  the  true  features  of  S^^^ 

^^  Popery.  jh^ 

^*jK  From  the  Episcopal  Recorder.  (^^ 

JW)       "  A  succinct  and  able  compendium  of  the  Protestant  view  on  fWi, 

^'*j[i  the  important  topic  its  title  indicates."  Cfe 

y^  '^^^^ m?. 

l^        %\i}&l^m  SQiitlgt  1?qMIe^iIoi)  Society,        ^ 

^^  118  ARCH  STREET.  PHILADELPHIA.  C^-^ 

U^  "^    ^    i^    i^    ^:^    %'    %^    '^    %-    -^    %^  ^    %'    '^  V£^^^ 


A     A     A  ^,0,    A     A     A  (:C^ 

CHRIST    OUR    LIFE  Cj^, 

IN  ITS  ORIGIN,  LAW,  AND  END.         "^^ 

A    PRIZE    ESSAY, 

PRESIDENT  OF  STEPNEY  COLIEGE,  LONDON. 

12mo.     336  pages.     PRICE  75  CENTS. 


From  the  Western  Watchman. 

"This  book  is  remarkable  for  the  originality,  clearness  and 
simplicity  of  its  plan,  the  exact  and  profound  learning  of  which 
it  is  the  fruit,  ■without  the  lumber  of  parade;  the  strength,  sim- 
plicity and  classic  beauty  of  its  style  ;  the  deep,  yet  lively  religious 
feeling  which  animates  every  sentence,  and  the  gentle  yet  irre- 
sistible march  of  thought  by  which  every  conclusion  is  reached."' 
From  the  Watchman  ami  Reflector. 

"  This  is  a  book  of  rare  value  to  the  general  reader.  It  is  a 
Prize  Essay,  its  merits  being  suflBiciently  declared  by  the  unani 
mous  award  of  the  committee  to  whom  it  was  submitted — all 
members  of  the  Church  of  England — after  an  examination  of 
sixty-four  manuscripts.  The  book  is,  of  course,  free  from  all  sec- 
tarian bias,  and  is  marked  by  great  catholicity,  as  well  as  breadth 
of  view." 

F-om  the  Christian  Review. 

"  Christ  in  his  character,  incarnation,  teaching,  death,  offices, 
&c.,  constitutes  the  theme  of  the  book.  The  style  is  clear  and 
forcible,  and  we  are  constrained  to  say  that  we  have  rarely 
read  a  work  more  deeply  imbued  with  the  evangelical  spirit.  '\\  e 
hope  our  readers  will  avail  themselves  of  this  truly  valuable 
contribution  to  our  Christian  literature." 

From  the  Southern  Baptist. 

"A  book  like  this  has  been  long  needed.    The  author  is  a  Bap- 
tist of  high  reputation.     After  the  inimitable  narratives  of  the 
Gospel,  this  is  the  best  life  of  Christ  we  have  yet  seen.    It  is  an 
excellent  manual  for  the  use  of  Bible  classes." 
From  the  Episcopal  Recorder. 

"  To  the  American  Baptist  Publication  Society  we  are  happy  to 
express  our  obligation  for  this  work.  We  think  there  are  few 
works  directed  to  the  same  object,  that  Can  rival  it  for  perspicuity 
and  skill  of  construction." 


lis  ARCir  Mill  I  r  pniL\r)rLPiiiA. 


)  ^  <i^   ^   V   V  V   V    V    tf   ^^   V  ^  1?  ^  ^^ 


f^  A     A     A     A     A 


V.       A  Biography.    By  Joseph  Belcher,  D.  D.  J-y' 

#||<  WITH  A  (^^ 

^^  Superb  Mezzotint  of  Carey  aud  his  Pundit,  ^^ 

f«^  -4«rZ  other  Engravings.  2^ 

12mo.     306  pp.    Price  80  cts.  (^ 


Tqe  illnstrlons  subject  of  this  Memoir,  its  interesting  style,  and  the 
many  new  facts  and  incidents  introduced  combine  to  render  it  a 
very  important  addition  to  our  Missionary  Literature.  It  has  been 
hailed  by  the  public  press  with  universal  approbation. 

From  the  Christian  Observer,  (Presbyterian). 
"The  personal  history  of  Dr.  Carey  is  a  bright  illustration  of 
Divine  grace,  and  the  sketch  of  it  given  in  this  Memoir,  offers  to 
Christians  of  cverj'  class,  a  hallowed  example  of  the  power  of  faith 
to  encourage  or  sustain  their  efforts  to  promote  the  great  interests 
of  religion." 

From  the  Christian  Herald,  (Presbyterian). 


^ 
^ 
i^ 


jj^^  "  Dr.  Belcher  has  executed  his  task  not  only  skilfullj',  but  with  t^a^ 

^J^  an  affection,  appreciation,  and  sympathy,  which  gives  a  peculiar  Cl^^ 

iSc  charm  to  the  work."  >^\ 

^♦JiS  From  the  Presbyterian.  fl*^ 

t^  "  We  think  the  author  of  this  work  has  done  well  in  preparing  a  f^-. 

^♦j<  new  biography  of  so  excellent  a  man.     *       *       *    It  is  a  more  )%*^ 

'^'i  complete  and  readable  3Iemoir  than  that  with  which  the  Christian  j§i 

^i^  public  have  been  so  manv  years  acquainted."  f/ 


^i 


FV<mi  the  Watchman  and  Beflector. 
"  This  volume  is  one  of  the  most  readable,  as  well  as  valuable 
of  all  our  Missionary  Memoirs.    The  engravings,  which  are  seven 
in  number,  illustrative  and  well-chosen,  add,  with  a  neat  typo- 
graphical aspect,  atiraction  and  interest." 

From  the  CJiristian  Feview. 
"  Such  a  popular  account  of  the  life  and  labors  of  the  fixther  of 
English  Baptist  Missions,  has  long  been  needed.    We  recommend 
'JC)    the  work  to  our  reaiiers,  praying  that  it  may  deepen  the  Missionary 
Spirit  in  our  Cliurches." 


P» 


¥ 


From  t?ie  National  Magazine.  «^ 

^i»j3       "The  Baptist  Church  has  been  greatly  honored  of  God  in  her  >l*^ 

•}?^    Missionaries.      *    *    *       Dr.  Carey  will  never  be  forgotten  for  his  W'sl 

^^Q    labors  in  Oriental  literature.       *       *       *      The  book  before  us  is  Q|^ 

^*jK    one  of  great  interest.     *       *       *     It  is  a  worthy  contribution  to  yj^^ 

=^^    our  Missionary  Literature.  Jaj 

^^  ^- m 

^    American  "^^M  '§\Mmtm  Bm%  1^ 

4^^  nS  ARCH  STREET,  PHILADELPHIA 

hf^  "v  %^  sr  ^  %^  V  ^  V  V  V  ■"¥ 


1  A    A    A    A    .?.    A    A    A    *    A    AAA    ■*  r«SJ 


BY  J.  NEWTON   BROWN, 

EDITOR  OF  TllE  ESCYCLOPEDIA  OP  RELiaiOOS  KNOWLEDGE. 

18mo.     70  pages.     PRICE  6-15  CENTS. 


THE  iAPTiSMAL  mtmm.-w 


m 


From  the  New  York  JReconUr. 

"  When  Mr.  Brown  was  editing  the  Encyclopedia  of  r.eligious 
Knowledge,  he  prepared  the  contents  of  this  little  volume  (except- 
ing a  few  recent  additions)  for  iusertion  in  that  worl<,  as  a  fair 
statement  of  the  difference,  and  grounds  of  difference,  between 
Baptists  and  Pedobaptists.  The  statement  was  stereotyped  for 
insertion  after  bteing  approved  by  the  ilev.  Dr.  Jeuks  and  the 
Rev.  Baron  Stow.  On  the  suggestion  of  one  of  the  publishers, 
however,  it  was  sent  to  Professors  Stuart  and  Woods,  and  came 
back  with  compliments  as  to  its  fairness,  &c.,  but  with  the  s»g- 
gestion  that  two  articles,  one  from  a  Baptist  and  the  other  from  a 
Pedobaptist.  each  giving  his  own  view,  would  be  a  better  course 
— this  course  was  adopted,  and  the  present  piiblication  has 
slumbered  until  now." 

From  the  Chi-istian  Chronicle. 

^'-  It  is  a  candid,  learned,  Christian,  and  thorough  discussion  of 
this  disputed  question  of  baptism.  Blr.  Brown  s'ates  the  views 
of  Pedobaptists  on  one  side,  with  the  arguuienis  employed  by 
them  in  their  support;  and  also  the  views  of  the  Baptists,  with 
the  arguments  employed  by  them  in  their  support,  on  the  other 
side,  and  we  think  the  latter  ai'e  shown  to  be  scriptural  and  con- 
clusive. It  is  one — considering  its  brevity— of  the  best  pro- 
ductions we  have  met  on  this  important  subject.  Pastors  and 
students  will  receive  much  light  for  their  future  guidance  by 
patiently  reading  this  little  volume. 

From  the  American  Baptist. 

'•It  is  ahrief,  but  remarkably  clear  and  faithful  statement  of 
the  principal  arguments  on  both  sides  of  the  Haptis;mal  contro- 
versy. So  far  as  we  can  see,  the  writer  lias  ])crformi'd  the  tusk 
he  proposed  to  himself  with  entire  impartiality,  and  in  an  emi- 
nently catholic  spirit. 

From  the  Zioji's  Advocate. 

"It  is  a  thorough  and  logical  production,  and  having  passed 
the  ordeal  of  criticism,  by  Pedobaptist  scholars,  may  be  relied  on 
as  a  fair  presentation  of  the  subject." 

From  the  Presbyterian. 

"  Although  the  Baptismal  Balance  does  not  shake  our  faith  m 
the  doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism,  we  are  free  to  confess  that  it  is 
written  in  an  eminently  good  spirit. 


(: 


1> 

l3» 


118  ARCH  STREET,  PHILADEIPHIA. 


-!<■' 


A     A 


A  4^  <^  y^  /i^  jk  -^^  ^  - .  - 

NEW  SUNDAY  SCHOOL  BOOKS  lf> 

PUBLISHED  BY  THE  V^** 

118  Arch  street,  Philadelphia.  ^ 


DEW  FOR  THE  DROOPING  FLOWER :  in  N4ne  Letters  address- 
ed to  Miss  Sarali  Saunders  during  her  laSt'ttlness.  By  John 
Foster.    18mo.    93  pa^es.  .  .  ,  18-20  cts. 

BIBLE  RHYMES  on  all  the  Books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 
By  Hannah  Moore.    ISmo.    72  pages    .  .  16-18  cts. 

WESTERN  SIDE;  or  Lights  and  Shadows  of  a  Western  Parish. 
By  a  Minister's  Wife.    18mo.    327  pages.     .  .  50  cts. 

Do.  Do.  fine  Edition.    12mo.    327  pages.    75  cts. 

MISSIONARY  CONVERTS  in  Heathen  Lands.  By  Uncle  Jose- 
PHUS.    18  mo.    118  pages.        .  .  ,  22  and  25  cts. 

THRILLING  FACTS  from  Missionary  Fields.  By  Uncle  Josephds. 
13  mo.    131  pages.      .....  22-25  cts. 

CURIOSITIES  OF  CHRISTIAN  MISSIONS.  By  Uncle  Josephus. 
18  mo.    117  pages.      .....  22-25  cts. 

MARY  B ARTLETT  :  Or  the  Young  Home  Missionary.  By  Fkiend 
Jane.    IS  mo.    60  pages.  ....  15  cts. 

A  LILY  GATHERED.  The  Conversion  of  James  Laing ;  who  died 
in  Scotland,  at  the  age  of  fourteen.  By  R.  M.  M'Chetne.  18mo. 
57  pages.     .......  15  cts. 

PHILIP   GARLAND:   Or  Love  One  Another.    18mo.  129  pages. 

25cts. 

WINTER  VACATION:  Or  how  to  be  a  Gentleman.  ISmo.  49 
pages.  ......  15  cents. 

STING  OF  THE  ADDER :  Or  the  History  of  the  Stanley  Family. 
By  Jennie  Dowung  De  Witt.    18mo.    132  pages.  28  cts. 

LIFE  AND  TIMES  OF  MENNO,  the  celebrated  Dutch  Reformer. 
With  an  accurate  Portrait.  By  J.  Newton  Brown  18mo. 
67  pages.      ......  16-18  cents- 

ELLEN  MASON :   Or  Prejudice  Vanquished.    18  mo.    92  pages. 

20  cents. 

WONDERFUL  HISTORY  OF  A  PIECE  OF  WOOD.  An  Expo- 
sure of  Papal  Idolatry.    13mo.    20  pages.  .  15  cents. 

COLMAN  AND  WHEELOCK  :  Or  the  Early  Called  of  the  Bunnan 
Mission.    18mo.    136  pages.  ...  25  cents. 


%^ 


V 


JliLIFE  m  TIMES  OF  MENNO,ij 

fjj^  THE  CELEBRATED   DUTCH    REFORMER.  ^f 

^'JS  BY  J.   NEWTON  BROWN.  0*^ 

^l       WITH    AN    ACCURATE    PORTRAIT.       ^ 

4jj5  18mo.     70  pages.     PRICE  16-18  CENTS.  ^ 

^i^f)  i^ro7H  </(e  Religious  Herald.                                    ^y 

.^)  '"  The  author  is  not  only  one  of  our  best,  but  also  one  of  our  (j^,. 

^**\  mo^t  cautious  and  reliable  writers.     Though  but  a  small  work,  dej*^ 

1»  this  is  a  valuable  volume  from  the  subjects  and  topics  on  which  it  ^M 

^*\\  treats.     It  is  embellished  with  a  jjortrait  of  jleuno,  one  of  tbe   /)|j^ 

^^  hncst  couuteuances  we  have  ever  seen.     We  should  be  glad  to  ^^ 

^Pij  1'  ain  that  a  copy  of  this  work  was  in  the  family  of  every  Baptist  siFiib 

'J'i  m  the  land."                                                                                             *m^ 

^^^  From  Hie  Mother'' s 'Journal .                                    ^Ifl^ 

"tAJ  "'Much  in  a  little,'  may  truly  be  said  of  this  book.    It  is  pre-  ^^ 

-^'^  paied  with  great  care,  and  is  a  chapter  in  the  history  of  the  Re-  (\fu 

**JQ  lormution  not  so  frequently  published,  but  of  no  less  interest  than  Q^ 

>^^  the  others."  ^^ 

<3]0CLlvIAN  AND   ^HBBLOOSs^# 

<^  OR,  THE  EARLY  CALLED  OF  THE  BURMAN  MISSION.  p|^ 

^J^  IBmo,     132  pages.     PRICE  25  CENTS.  m^ 

\r^  <<>»>■» \'c*i 

^♦IK  Fi-om  the  Widchman  and  Reflector.  /'f*'^ 

^i       "Though  their  devotion  to  the  work  of  Foreign  Missions,  then  J^ 

^♦i?  viewed  as  hardly  beyond  an  experiment,  was  seated  by  the  offering  Vfi^ 

^)  up  of  life  itself,  and  included  characteristics  and  incidents  worthy  O^f 

^^O  ot  ,1  chronicle.  Colman  and  Wheelock  have  wanted,  hitherto  soine  (^^ 

"  ^^  '■rth  memorial  as  this  book  furnishes.     We  are  glad  that  the  task  ^*^ 

-,^^  of  preparing  it  has  fallen  under  the  skillful  hand  of  our  friend  f|l^ 

^1^^  M   A.  C,  and  that  so  importfuit  a  link  in  the  history  of  the  Bur-  ^^ftp^ 

l>-^  man  Mission,  as  is  formed  by  these  '  early  called'  servants  of  the  f^, 

"^Nq  Loid,  is  hereby  better  prepared."  df--^ 

y'i^  From  the  Christian  Chronicle.  ^0, 

**i)       "Colman  and  Wheelock  left  their  churches,  their  native  land.  Q^ 

-,1^^  and  their  friends,  for  Burmiih,  while  the  mission  was  yet  in  a  fM- 

^*^)  primitive  state,  and  though  their  labors  were  of  short  duration.  Q^^ 

N^  thev  are  worthy  of  lasting  remembrance.     The  Society  have  doue  J^,^ 

^"jj  "^  ^"""^  work  in  giving  this  book  to  the  public.''  LM^ 

^*j6  118  ARCH  8TKKET,  PTirLADELPIfTA.  Q^ 


Theological  Semmary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01029  9578 


